e Right Hon. W. E. 



?l 




GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS. 



Third] 



Routledge's Railway Library Advertiser. 



l/ssue. 




Has been known, for more than 85 years to be the 
best and safest preserver and beautifier of the hair ; 
it prevents hair falling off or turning grey, strengthens 
weak hair, and makes it beautifully soft, pliable, and 
glossy ; it is especially recommended for children, as 
forming the basis of a beautiful head of hair. It 
contains no lead, mineral, or poisonous ingredients, 
and can now also be had in a golden colour, which 
is specially recommended for fair and golden-haired 
children and persons. Size, 3s. 6d., 7s., los. 6d., 
equal to four sm.all, and 21s. 

Great care must he taken to avoid sjzirious and worthless imitations under similar 
names, and to ask for Rowlands'' Macassar Oil. Sold everywhere. 






V\ilKt»<WraS55.itV 



nrtri! 



>>"'' 



BUOS 

MOTBS. 
BEE"nLES 



^>i^'ii^h'Siyk>^:&>-<^A\\'ix;'X>yiit^^^^ 



8o[dinTins6^!:M2/6 



/.•VJl'M^^ V'i' ,J»'.--.i.^»J<Ui.!J-lM.'-4MJl-J»».-i.j ^jt»iiiMwi.UiJ, 






BEST AND SURE REMEDY FOR 





Sold in Tins, is. i^d. each, 




Third] Routledge's Railway Library Advertiser. [Issue. 

THE SEEMING MYSTERY OF 
CHOLERA AND FEVER. 

THE OFFICE OF THE LIVER IS TO CLEA.NSE THE^ 
BLOOD, as a scavenger might sweep the streets ; when 
the liver is not working properly a quantity of effete (or waste) 
matter is left floating in the blood; under these circumstances, 
should the poison germ of Cholera or Fever be absorbed, then 
the disease results ; on the contrary, anyone whose liver and 
other organs are in a normal or healthy condition may be sub- 
jected to precisely the same condition as to the contagious 
influences, and yet escape Cholera and Fever. This, I con- 
sider, explains satisfactorily the seeming mystery that persons 
who are placed in circumstances peculiarly favourable for the 
Development of Cholera or Fever, who, in fact, live in the 
midst of it, escape unscathed. Cholera and Fever may be com- 
pared to a weed (and a very ugly one too), but even weeds will 
not grow on solid flagstones ; and what I contend for is this, 
that a person maybe subjected to the influence of the specific 
poison— that is, the germ of Cholera or Fever— and not con- 
tract the disease. Why? Because his secretions were in a 
thoroughly normal condition, and consequently the poison 
could not take root, anymore thain a weed could do on a flagstone ; and, on the other hand, 
a person may have the soil (that is, disordered secretions, &c ) very favourable for the 
disease, and still he escapes. Why ? Because the soil was prepared, but there was no seed. 
Hence the importance and great value of ENO'S FETJIT SALT, which, under all circum- 
stances, keeps the secretions normal ; if only as a preventive against and sure remedy for 
poisoned blood, biliousness, sick headache, &c., no one ought to be without it. 




"DEMOVES POISONOUS MATTER caused by impure or vitiated air, errors- of eating 
^* or drinking, &c , by natural means. No one is safe without having at hand some 
efficient means of warding off BLOOD POISONS. After a very patient and careful 
observation, extending over niany years, of the effects of END'S FRUIT SALT, I have not 
the least hesitation in stating that, if its great value in keeping the body healthy were 
universally known, not a single travelling trunk or portmanteau would be without it. 

IMPORTANT TO TRAVELLERS AND ALL LEAVING HOME FOR A CHANGE.— 
" We have for the last four years used your FRUIT SALT during several important 
1 survey expeditions in the Malay Peninsula, Siain, and Cambodia, and have undoubtedly 
I derived very great benefit from it. In one instance only was one of our party attacked with 
j fever during that period, and that happened after our svipply of Fruit f^alt had run out. 
) When mafeing long marches under the powerful rays of a vertical sun, or tramping through 
' 3wampy districts, we have used the Fruit Salt two and three times a day. The Fruit Salt 
lets as a gentle aperient, keeps the blood cool and healthy, and wards off fever. We have ■ 
pleasure in voluntarily testifying to the value of your preparation and our firm belief in its- 
sflicacy. We never go in the jungle without it, and have also recommended it to others.-^" 
Tours truly. Commander A.J. Loftus, FE. Gr.S., his Siamese Majesty's Hydrographer; 
E. C. Davidson, Superintendent Siamese Government Telegraphs. Bangkok, Siam, May. 
1883.— J. C. Eno., Esq., London." 

UNO'S FRUIT SALT.—" After suffering for nearly two and a half years from severe 
*-■ headache and disordered stomach, and after trying almost everything and spending* 
nuch money without finding any benefit, I was recommended by a friend to try jour 
FKUIT SALT, and before I had fiaished one bottle I found it doing me a great deal of good, 
md now I am restored to my usual health ; and others I know that have tried it have not- 
mjoyed such good health for years.— Yours most truly, Robert Htjmphekts, Post Office,- 
Barrasford." . . 

gUCCESS IN LIFE. — " A new invention isbrouglit before tlie public^ and c'omtnands' 

success. A acove of ahominahle imitations aire immediately introduopd by the unscrupu-^ 

ous, who, incjpying the original closely enough to deceive the public, and yet not so 

sxactly as to infringe upon legal I'ights, exercise an ingenuity that, employed in an original 

, ihannel, could not fail to secure reputation and profit." — Adams. 

DIRECTIONS IN SIXTEEN LANGUAGES HOW TO PREVENT DISEASE. J 

'jAJJTlO'N^.— Examine eacli Bottle,anclseetliat We Capsule is marl(ed '^ENO'S FRUIT 
SALT." Without it you have been imposed on by a worthless imitation. '. 
SOLD BY All chemists. 
epared only at Eno's Fruit Salt Works, Hatcham, London, S.E.> 
by J. C. ENO.?S PATENT. . . 



Third;\ 



Routledge's Railway Library Advertiser. 



[issue 




DICINE 



'S PILLS 




Are admitted by thousands to be worth a Guinef^ 
a Box for bilious and nervous disorders, sucl? 
as wind and pain in the stomach, sick headacb 
giddiness, fulness and swelling after me; 
dizziness and drowsiness, cold chills, flushin s 
of heat, loss of appetite, shortness of breath, 
costiveness, scurvy, blotches on the skin, dis- 
turbed sleep, frightful dreams, and all nervous 
and trembling sensations, etc. The first dose 
will give relief in twenty minutes. This is no 
fiction, for they have done it in thousands of 
cases. Every sufferer is earnestly invited to 
try one box of these Pills, and they will be 
acknowledged to be 

A GUINEA A BOX. 

For females of all ages these Pills are invaluable, as a few doses r 
them carry off all gross humours, open all obstructions, and bring abo 
all that is required. No female should be without them. There is 
medicine to be found to equal BEECHAM'S PILLS for removing ai 
obstruction or irregularity of the system. If taken according to the 
directions given with each box they will soon restore females of all ages <■'■ 
sound and robust health. 

For a weak stomach, impaired digestion, and all disorders of the live 
they act like " MAGIC," and a few doses will be found to work wonder. 
upon the most important organs of the human machine. They strength 
the whole muscular system, restore the long lost cofnplexion, bring ba 
the keen edge of appetite, and arouse into action with the ROSEBUL 
health the whole physical energy of the human frame. These a 
" FACTS " admitted by thousands embracing all classes of society ; a 
one of the best guarantees to the nervous and debilitated is, Beechan 
Pills have the largest sale of any patent medicine in the world. 

Caution. — The Public are requested to notice that the woi 
" Beecham's Pills, St. Helens," are on the Government Stamp affixed 
each box of the Pills. If not on they are a forgery. 

Prepared only and sold wholesale and retail by the proprietor -q, 
Beecham, Chemist, St. Helens, Lancashire, in boxes at is. i^d. 
2S. 9d. each. Sent post free from the proprietor for 15 or 36 star 
Sold by all Druggists and Patent Medicine Dealers in the Kingdom. P 

N.B. — Full directions are given with each box. ' 



SPEECHES 



OF THE RIGHT HON. 



W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 



UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME. 



LORD SALISBURY'S SPEECHES. 

THE RT. HON. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN'S 
SPEECHES. 



LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL'S 
SPEECHES. 



SPEECHES 



OF THE RIGHT HON. 



W. E, GLADSTONE, M,P, 



WITH 



A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE 



EDITED BY 

in HENRY W. LUCY. 



^^7 



LONDON 
GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS 

BROADWAY, LUDGATE HILL 

. NEW YORK : 9 LAFAYETTE PLACE 

1885 






1 .: 



LONDON : 
BRADBUKV, AGXEW, & CO., PIIINTKR3, WHITEl'^RIARs;. 







CONTENTS. 



1 

PAGE 

The Second Reading of the Ieish La.nd Bill ... 13 
Fair Trade 29 

The State of Ireland 47 

Free Trade and Protection 58 

The Work of the Government 71 

National Expenditure 79 

The Bradlaugh Question 86 

A YoTE OF, Censure 99 

The Franchise Bill ... . . . . . . . 118 

The Vote of Credit 137 

Address to the Electors of Midlothian 150 

THE FOURTH MIDLOTHIAN CAMPAIGN. 

Local Government for Ireland lio7 

Disestablishment , ' .17-1 

The Two Parties 188 

The Land — the People— Local Government 204 



MR. aLADSTONE. 



Three years ago Mr. Gladstone celebrated the jubilee of liis 
labours in the public service, and but yesterday he was in Mid- 
lotliian engaged with all the fervour of a young candidate in 
promoting his own election and the triumph of the principles of 
which he is the representative. Born on the 29th of December, 
1809, he distinguished himself both at Eton and Oxford, taking a 
double first-class at the University, which he quitted in 1831. 
After the fashion of the day, he proceeded from College to make 
the grand tour, and was in Italy when the suromons came, in 
obedience to which he placed his foot on the first rung of the 
ladder of his fame. It was the Duke of Newcastle, registered 
owner of the borough of Newark, who was immediately instru- 
mental in bringing Mr. Gladstone into the House of Commons. 
He issued his Address to the Electors on the 9th of October, 1831, 
and it is cm^ious to find in it a promise on the part of the young- 
Tory candidate to do his best to secure the allotment of small 
holdings for the agricultm-al labom-er. His maiden speech in 
the House of Commons was delivered in defence of the domestic 
institution of slavery, a burning question at the time he entered 
Parliament. Mr. Gladstone was then, as he is described in a 
famous sentence by Lord Macaulay, " A young man of unblemished 
character and of distinguished parliamentary talents, the risino- 
hope of those stern and unbending Tories who follow reluctantly 
and mutinously a leader whose experience and eloquence are in- 
dispensable to them, but whose cautious temper and moderate 
opinions they abhor." 

There was nothing either of caution or reluctance in Mr. Glad- 
stone's attachment to Sir Robert Peel. To this day he can hardly 
mention the name of his early leader without signs of emotion. 
It was in the last days of 1834 that Sir Robert Peel, undertaking 
to form a Ministry in succession to that of Lord Melbourne, 



viii Mr. Gladstone. 



offered Mr. G-ladstone the post of Junior Lord of the Treasury. 
Within six months he was promoted to the office of Under- 
Secretary for the Colonies, and, just fifty years in advance of 
Mr. Chamberlain, brought in a Bill dealing with the question of 
safety of life at sea. It is a fact little known, I believe, that at 
one time Mr. Gladstone contemplated a career at the Bar. His 
name appears on the books of Lincoln's Inn from 1833 to 1839, 
in which last year he petitioned to have it removed, alleging as the 
ground for the request that he had given up all intention of being 
called to the Bar. 

The Peel Administration of 1834 did not live beyond the spring 
of 1835, and for the next five or six years Mr. Gladstone remained 
in Opposition with his chief. But, though out of office, he was 
not idle. He spoke frequently in debate, and the growth of 
his position in popular opinion is testified to by the fact that in 
1839, being in his twenty-eighth year, he was invited to stand as 
the Tory candidate for Manchester. In 1841 Sir Robert Peel was 
back in power, and Mr. Gladstone, returned again as member for 
Newark — this time as a colleague of Lord John Manners — under- 
took two offices, the Mastership of the Mint and the Vice-Presi- 
dency of the Board of Trade. He was of great assistance to Sir 
Robert Peel in the revision of the tariff which preceded the aboli- 
tion of the Corn Duties. In 1843 he became President of the 
Board of Trade, and two years later resigned his office, not being in 
ao-reement with the Government in the matter of a Bill introduced 
by them dealing with Maynooth College. But he was not a man 
.whom Sir Robert Peel could long spare from his side. Early in 
the next year he returned to the Ministry as Secretary of State for 
the Colonies, and, what was more important, pledged to go the 
full length of Sir Robert Peel's Free Trade poHcy, which now 
reached the point of the abolition of the Corn Laws. This pro- 
gress necessitated the resignation of his seat for Newark, and for 
the whole of the session of 1846, and during the greater part of 
the next, he remained Avithout a seat. When he returned as 
member for Oxford University the Corn Lav,^ Repeal Act had 
been added to the Statute Book, Sir Robert Peel was relegated 
to the Opposition benches, and the Whigs came in for a lease of 
power. 

In 1853, in the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, he found his true 
place. He became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on the 18th 
of April in this year he delivered the first of what has proved to be a 
long series of Budget speeches unsurpassed in Parliamentary his- 
tory. Early in 1859 the brief administration of Lord Derby, in 
which Mr. Disraeli had for the second time held the office of 



Mr. Gladstone. ' ix 



GhaRcellor of the Exchequer, came to an end, and Mr. Gladstone 
joined the Ministry formed by Lord Palmerston, which lasted as 
long as the Premier's life. 

The year 1865 was an important epoch in Mr. Grladstone's 
history. Offering himself for re-election at Oxford, he was rejected 
in favour of Mr. G-athorne Hardy. From the University he 
hastened to the manufacturing to^m, and stood before the men of 
Manchester, as he said, " unmuzzled." The unmuzzHng process 
was completed by an occurrence which took place in the autumn 
of 18(55. Lord Palmerston died, and the pent-up flood of Liberal 
life rushed downward like a cataract. The time for coalitions and 
temporising was passed. Earl Eussell succeeded as Premier, and 
Mr. G-ladstone was named Leader of the House of Commons, still 
holding the ministerial oifice of Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
It was felt that the hour had come for the introduction of a Reform 
Bill ; and in Earl Russell the man was naturally found. Of course 
the statesman who had taken a leading part in the Reform cam- 
paign of 1832, was largely responsible for the measure of 1866. 
But it happened that \o Mr. Gladstone, as Leader of the House 
of Commons, fell the task of introducing the Bill, and bearing 
the brunt of the battle which raged around it. There were giants 
in those days ; and the Parliamentary debates of the session of 
1866 unmistakeably stand out in the pages of Hansard, by reason 
of their brilUancy and fire. Mr. Disraeh led the united body of 
the Conservatives in an attack u^on a Bill which they regarded 
with holy horror, as a long advance on the way to the establish- 
ment of a democracy. But the most dangerous foes of the Liberal 
party were to be found within its own household. This was the 
year in which Mr. Lowe, fresh from the insufficient glories of a 
Colonial Legislature, made his mark in the House of Commons. 
The terror of the uttermost Tory was far exceeded by the appre- 
hension with which he regarded this Bill. Speaking of Mr. 
Gladstone, and contemplating the probability of the Bill being 
carried, he exclaimed, " I court not a single leaf of the laurels that 
may encircle his brow. I do not envy him his triumph. His 
be the glory of carrying the Bill — mine of having to the utmost 
of my poor ability resisted it." 

It was in this year that the Cave of Adullam was formed, and 
there was created that immortal " party of two (Mr. Horsman and 
Mr. Lowe), like the Scotch terrier that was so covered with hair 
that you could not tell which was the head and which the tail." 
The debate on the second reading of the Bill lasted for several 
days. On the eve of the division it fell to Mr. Gladstone's lot to 
wind up the debate, which he did in a speech containing perhaps 



Mr. Gladstone. 



absolutely the finest peroration of the many which sparkle in the 
train of the infinitude of his orations. " You cannot fight against 
the future," he said, turning sharply upon the Opposition, and 
speaking in a voice where pathos struggled with exultation for the 
mastery. " Time is on our side. The great social forces which 
move onward in their might and majesty, and which the tumult 
of our debates does not for a moment impede or disturb — those 
great social forces are against you. They are marshalled on our 
side ; and the banner which we now carry in this fight, though 
perhaps at the moment it may droop over our sinking heads, yet 
it soon again will float in the height of Heaven, and will be borne 
by the firm hands of the united people of the three kingdoms, 
perhaps not to an easy, but to a certain and a not far distant 
victory." 

In the meantime the defeat too surely foreseen was accom- 
plished. The Adullamites coalescing with the Conservatives 
made it impossible to pass the measure, which was finally thrown 
out. The Ministry resigned, and the Earl of Derby, most 
unhappy of Cabinet constructors, was again called upon to form 
a Ministry from a party in a hopeless minority. 

In 1868, as the result of the Greneral Election, Mr. Gladstone 
was invested with supreme power, and received l^om the consti- 
tuencies the mandate to disestablish the Irish Church. In this 
Parliament, beginning its labours in February, 1869, an enormous 
amount of work Avas done under the personal direction of Mr. 
Grladstone. The Irish Church was disestablished, the Irish land 
freed, the Education Act passed, Purchase abolished, and the 
Ballot established. In 1874 the energy of the Liberal majority 
had burned itself out, and upon an appeal to the country the Con- 
servatives were returned to power, Mr. Disraeli meeting Parlia- 
ment in almost exactly the same position as Mr. Gladstone had 
filled when the new Parliament gathered in 1869. What followed 
on this — Mr. Gladstone's withdrawal from public life, his awaken- 
ing at the time of the Bulgarian atrocities, his first campaign in 
Midlothian, his triumphant return, and the great works accom- 
plished in the Parliament but just dead, are fresh memories, that 
need not here be revived. 

More than forty years ago there was pubHshed a little book 
entitled the " British Senate in 1838." It is full of those personal 
descriptions of eminent men in their public capacity which, written 
in our own time, we very properly reprobate, but for which his- 
torians and biographers, ^vriting many years after, are exceedingly 
grateful. The anonymous T^Titer has preserved for us a picture 
of the eloquent young man which is rare and interesting. " Mr. 



Mr Gladstone. xi 



Gladstone's appearance and manners," he says, *' are much in his 
favour. He is a fine-looking man. He is about the usual height, 
and of good figure. His countenance is mild and pleasant, and 
has a highly intellectual expression. His eyes are clear and quick ; 
his eyebrows are dark and rather prominent. There is not a dandy 
in the House but envies what Truefitt would call his ' fine head of 
jet-black hair.' It is always carefully parted fi*om the crown 
downward to the brow, where it is tastefully shaded ; his features 
are small and regular, and his complexion must be a very unworthy 
witness if he does not possess an abundant stock of health. Mr. 
Gladstone's gesture is varied but not violent. When he rises he 
generally puts both his hands behind his back ; and having there 
suffered them to embrace each other for a short time, he unclasps 
them, and allows them to drop on either side. They are not 
permitted to remain long in the locality before you see them again 
closed together, and hanging down before him. Their reunion is 
not suffered to last for any length of time. Again a separation 
takes place, and now the right hand is seen moving up and down 
before him. Having thus exercised it a little, he thrusts it into 
the pocket of his coat, and then orders the left hand to follow its 
example. Having granted them a momentary repose there, they 
are again put into motion ; and in a few seconds they are seen 
reposing vis-d-vis on his breast. He moves his face and body 
from one direction to another, not forgetting to bestow a liberal 
share of attention on his own party. He is always listened to 
with much attention by the House, and appears to be highly 
respected by men of all parties. He is a man of good business 
habits: of this he furnished abundant proof when Under-Secre- 
tary for the Colonies during the short-Uved administration of Sir 
Eobert Peel." 

It is curious to note that some of these mannerisms of forty 
years ago are preserved by the great statesman we know to-day. 
It is particularly notable that to this day, when Mr. Gladstone 
rises and begins what is intended to be a great oration, he has a 
tendency to clasp his hands behind his back. This attitude, 
however, like the subdued mood of which it is an indication, 
prevails only during the opening sentences. Age has rather fired 
than dulled his oratorical energy. He has even, during the 
existence of the present Parliament, increased in rapidity of 
gesture almost to the point of fury. The jet black hair of fifty 
years ago has faded and fallen, leaving only a few thin wisps of 
grey carefully disposed over the grandly-formed head with which, 
as he once told a Scotch deputation, London hatters have had 
such trouble. The rounded cheeks are sunken, and their bloom 



xii M7\ Gladstone. 



has given place to pallor ; the full brow is wrinkled ; the dark 
eyes, bright and flashing still, are underset with innumerable 
wrinkles ; the " good figure " is somewhat rounded at the 
shoulders ; and tlie sprightly step is growing deliberate. But 
the intellectual fire of fifty years ago is rather quickened than 
quenched, and the promise of health has been abundantly 
fulfilled in a maintenance of physical strength and activity that 
seems phenomenal. Mr. Grladstone will outsit the youngest 
member of the House if the issue at stake claims his vote in the 
pending division. Up to the period when his voice failed he 
could speak for three hours at a stretch, and he put in the three 
hours as much mental and physical energy as, judiciously dis- 
tributed, would suffice for the whole debate. 

By comparison he is far more emphatic in gesture vdien ad- 
dressing the House of Commons than when standing before a 
public meeting. This, doubtless, is explicable by the fact that 
while in the one case he is free from contradiction, in the other 
he is, more particularly during a period of Tory ascendancy, 
outrageously subject to it. Trembling through every nerve with 
intensity of conviction and the wrath of battle, he ahnost literally 
smites his opponent hip and thigh. Taking the brass-bound 
box upon the table as representing " the right hon. gentle- 
man" or "the noble lord" opposite, he will beat it violently 
with his right hand, creating a resounding noise that sometimes 
makes it difficult to catch the words he desires to emphasise. Or, 
standing with heels closely pressed together and feet spread out 
fanwise, so that he may turn as on a pivot to watch the effect of 
his speech on either side of the House, he will assume that the 
palm of his left hand is the adversary of the moment, and 
straightway he beats upon it with his right hand with a ferocity 
that causes to curdle the blood of the occupants of the Ladies' 
Gallery. At this stage will be noted the most marked retention 
of early House of Commons habit, in the way in which the orator ■ 
continually tm^ns round to address his own followers, to the 
outraging of a fundamental point of etiquette which requires 
that all speech should be directed to the Chair. 

These are personal peculiarities which have an interest of 
their own as accompanying outbursts of eloquence the fame of 
which fills the world, 

HENEY W. LUCY. 

Lqndon, JSfov, 1885. 



SPEECHES 



OF THE RIGHT HON. 



WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE, M.R 



THE SECOND HEADING OF THE IRISH 

LAND BILL. 

(ZzY THE EOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 16, 1881.) 

Sir, I desire to apologize to the House for my having requested my 
hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. 
Johnson) to permit me, instead of himself, to address it at this early 
portion of the evening — though not quite so early as I hoped it would 
have been. Various observations have been made by hon. members, 
who appear to think there has been either a purpose or imnecessary 
reservation on the part of the Government with respect to some ques- 
tions of interest raised in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill ; and I have 
made uj) my own mind that it is well for me — though I do not see the 
justice of the objection — to do all that lies in my power to obviate its 
repetition. I have,, therefore, determined to take advantage of the 
opportunity secured by my hon. and learned friend, and to solicit the 
privilege of addressing the House to-night ; and being somewhat indis- 
posed, and not able to remain in the House throughout the evening, to 
venture to make a change in the arrangement as to the person by whom 
the debate is to be resumed. 

" CONFISCATIOlSr." 

Now, sir, before I speak on the Bill, with the second reading of which 
we are concerned, I wish to refer to two words which we have heard 
often repeated in this debate. The first word is " confiscation," and the 
second word is " compensation." They are words that are, and ought to 
be, in close association together ; for I certainly should be very slow to 
deny that where confiscation could be proved compensation ought to 
follow. But, sir, I must say that those words are used too frequently 
and too soon. They are almost the stock expressions of debate upon 
certain classes of questions. They have repeatedly, again and again 



14 S'peeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

been urged with tlie greatest confidence where, in some cases, no proof 
has been shown, and where in other cases disproof has been furnished 
abundantly. I will not refer now in detail to the charges that were 
made upon the very limited measure that we introduced last year with 
respect to Compensation for Disturbance, because that remains as it was 
twelve months ago — a matter of opinion — having been nipped in the 
bud, and having l3een prevented from doing the extended evil which 
was anticipated from it by hon. gentlemen opposite, or the great good 
which we, on our part, confidently believed that it would have pro- 
duced. Hon. gentlemen opposite know — I need hardly remind them — 
how this charge of confiscation was raised on the repeal of the Corn 
Laws ; and how it was raised last year upon the very humble, though 
useful, measure introduced by my right hon. and learned friend the 
Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect to Ground 
Game. It is more to the purpose that I should remind them how freely 
it was raised when the Land Bill was under discussion in 1870. It was 
used on that occasion by the hon. gentleman the Member for Mid Lin- 
colnshire (Mr. Chaplin) ; but I had not intended to quote him in regard 
to it had he not invited me by his cheer. It was, however, usecl by 
others, who may be considered as representative men of the party. 
Lord Salisbury described that Bill as bribing one class by plundering 
another. He said : " You are bribing one class and plundering another, 
and you are setting an example easily loll owed." Lord Cairns used much 
the same language. He spoke candidly, and said : " You allow me the 
option of purchasing my own property," words which themselves imply 
confiscation. Indeed, he quoted with praise a declaration from a certain 
publication, that there would be no settlement of the question without 
something which would be called confiscation. Well, I am very glad 
that I am not mis-stating anything as regards the case. " Confiscation " 
was the word applied to the leading enactments of the Land Bill of 
1870. Did the Land Act, when it became the law of the land, confiscate 
the property of the landlords ? Did it injure the property of the land- 
lords ? We afiirm, on the contrary, and upon evidence, that it improved 
the property of the landlords. A shake of the head is less authoritative 
than the returns made of authentic transactions in Courts of Justice, and 
authentic transactions in an Irish Court of Justice from year to year 
show us two things. In the first place, the rents have increased under 
the action of the Land Act. I am not speaking now of undue increase ; 
I would say rents have grown under the action of the Land Act. And, 
in the second place, upon the increased rents, with the larger rental, a 
larger number of years' purchase has been obtained where the property 
has come into the market. And that, sir, has been the end of the 
charge of confiscation with respect to the Land Act. 

But I humbly think there have been cases much more like confisca- 
tion than the Land Act. I find a case in my own experience in 1874, 
though it was on a more limited scale. I refer to the confiscation of the 
ad vowsons in Scotland under the Church Patronage Act. 1 mentioned 
it at the time, and I never knew a clearer case in my life. But that is 
a small matter. Confiscation has come nearer to Ireland in previous 
legislation. When, in a country where it is now admitted that the 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 1 5 

improvements upon the holdings are, as a rule, the work of the tenants, 
we alloAved and encouraged the landlord to carry those improvements 
into the market and to sell them for his own benefit — then, indeed, 
there was something like confiscation. I never heard, sir, on that occa- 
sion that the Members for the University of Dublin or anyone else 
belonging to their party were scandalized at the j)roceedings of Par- 
liament. It was a most unfortunate and deplorable business. I do not 
say, and I do not believe, that those who made the recommendations 
which led to it — the Members of the Devon Commission — were actuated 
by any evil motive. I believe it was a sheer error, arising out of a 
heedless want of regard for existing facts. But I want to point it out as 
teaching a lesson of caution and circumspection to those who so freely 
and so readily use these hard words and cast them at the heads of men 
who also consider that to propose principles of confiscation would be a 
disgrace — a disgrace to the Ministers who suggested and the Parliament 
which would tolerate them for a moment. 

I own that I go myself further than what I have stated with regard 
to the Encumbered Estates Act. By it we have established a system in 
Ireland, during the present century, which essentially altered the posi- 
tion of the Irish tenant without his permission — I may say without his 
knowledge. The old system of the Irish law made it hardly practicable 
for a landlord, without the greatest delay and difiiculty, to put into force 
extreme measures against the tenant. I do not make that statement 
upon feeble or doubtful authority. I make it on the statement of a 
preamble of an Act which altered that state of things. The Act of 
1816, which did this, recited in its preamble that such were the expenses 
and delays of ejectment that it was entirely and absolutely impracticable 
as a remedy. We must not, therefore, refuse to look at the fact that if 
the recital of that preamble be true, there was a permanence and secu- 
rity of tenure then attaching to the Irish tenant which you have since 
taken away. He has never acquiesced in that abstraction of the security 
which he possessed and enjoyed; he has maintained against it a con' 
tinual protest ; he has certainly not allowed it to lapse into abeyance 
What I wish to say is that we are endeavouring, and it is time to endea- 
vour, to establish the order of something like equal justice in Ireland in 
these matters ; and that those who plead on behalf of landlords — and 
they have a perfect right to plead against anything that they think 
trespasses on those rights — should recollect what is due to others who 
have so long suffered from a course of legislation continued through 
generation after generation, endured too long without complaint, and 
now resulting in difiiculties with which we are endeavouring to cope, 
and in the endeavour to cope with which I think we are entitled to some 
consideration on the part of this House. 

NO CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. 

Now, first, with regard to the charges of confiscation. I will only say 
that the Government cannot admit that they make any confiscation, or 
in any way approach confiscation, in this Bill, and are not prepared in con- 
sequence to admit any plea for compensation. The proof of confiscation — 
the proof of damage resulting from the action of the Legislature — is the 



16 Sioeeches of Bight Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

very tirst step tliat must be taken, and that must be established beyond 
doubt before the House can fairly be called upon to consider whether it 
will grant compensation or not. In 1846 the Irish landlord was not 
inconsiderably compensated at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws, 
notwithstanding the enormous benefits conferred upon him by Sir 
Kobert Peel in that measure. There was not a single commodity reared 
in Ireland for export that has not increased in price under the action of 
Free Trade, and yet for the change that brought about those results the 
Irish landlords were compensated by the transfer of a moiety of the 
charge for the Constabulary to the Consolidated Fund, a moiety which 
then, I think, amounted to ^300,000 or ^400,000, but now amounts to 
more than ^1,000,000. I will now pass from the question of confiscation 
and compensation, and come to the Bill. 

Now I wish to observe, sir, that I have never known a case of so large 
a measure debated for such a length of time of which so few points have 
been brought into serious discussion. The points that have been brought 
into serious discussion, in very different degrees, are, as far as I know, 
these. We have heard much of fair rents, and we have had reference to 
the question of arrears. On the question of arrears I will say nothing, 
except that it is an important question ; but there will be no advantage, 
indeed there would be a difficulty, in dealing with it in detail on the 
second reading of the Bill. In the same way, another bye-question 
which we have considered, and the result of which consideration appears 
in the Bill — but it may be worthy, notwithstanding, of further con- 
sideration — is the question of current leases. That also is evidently a 
question which, in my opinion, ought to be reserved for the Committee 
on the Bill. Another question, sir, that has been repeatedly raised has 
been the apparent unfairness and hardship of refusing to the landlords, 
as it is said, the power to go into the Court. That is certainly an obvious 
and plausible question. If you permit the tenant to come into your 
Court, why do you not permit the landlord 1 That question seems to 
have caused much difiiculty, and one hon. and learned gentleman, the 
Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten), was so struck with the force of 
the question that he said he should propose that the landlord should be 
jpermitted to go into Court. But how did the hon. and learned Member 
propose to do so ? His speech was characterised by great critical and 
logical power. But he proposed to give an experimental proof of his 
constructive powers, and that was a much more dangerous task. He 
said it was a hard case that a landlord having 150 tenants should be 
liable to 150 suits. What he proposes is this : "I will let the landlord 
go into Court and exhibit to the Court the state of his rents, and get 
from the Court a certificate that his rents are fair. But the landlord 
must undertake not to raise his rents for a certain number of years." 
Did the hon. and learned gentleman, who is a lawyer, propose that that 
proceeding should take place behind the back of the tenant '] That is the 
answer I get. I am glad to find that the hon. and learned gentleman, 
when under criticism, is not insensible to comment. He meant then 
that there must be notice to the tenant. Very good. The consequence 
is that the hon. and learned gentleman proposes, by way of giving favour 
to the landlord, that he shall have 150 suits on at the same time, in order 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 17 



that lie may be rewarded by tbe x)rivilege of having the rent established, 
which rent he must not raise for a certain number of years. I cannot 
conceive that the hon. and learned gentleman was serious in making 
such a proposal as that the landlord should be allowed to come as a 
privilege into Court and raise the question of increasing every rent on 
his estate. 

THE AIM OF THE BILL. 

But, sir, we have proceeded on an entirely opposite principle — the 
principle of disturbing nothing that we could avoid disturbing, and of 
leaving outside the Court and the action of the Court all those who are 
willing to be so left, in order that they may settle their affairs without 
the intervention of the Court. That is the aim of the Bill. The Bill 
does not force the Court upon the whole agricultural tenantry of Ire- 
land ; it leaves the initiative of going before the Court to the tenant. 
But still that is not an answer to the question, Why not allow the land- 
lord to go into Court ? In the first place you are entirely mistaken in 
the idea that the landlord has no power to go into Court. That is a 
mistake made by many lion, gentlemen who have made eloquent 
speeches on the other side of the^'House, evidently without having read 
beyond the first page of the Bill. Now, sir, what is the interest of the 
landlord in this matter 1 His interest, in the first place, lies in keeping 
up his rent to a fair and just standard. That interest is secured to him 
by giving him the power of raising his rent, and throwing it upon the 
tenant to go into Court in order to obtain a judicial rent against him. 
Some people say : " Why don't you allow the landlord to escape the 
odium of raising of rent by obtaining a judicial sentence from the 
Court ] '' They think — it is the first time I ever heard it — that any 
landlord in this country believes that he is diminishing the odium of 
some proceeding that he takes against a tenant in his own interest by 
founding upon it a lawsuit in which he involves the tenant. The fact is 
that so far from diminishing odium, he would, in my opinion, largely 
increase it, when he mingles the action of the Court with his own 
pressure upon the tenant. 

THE landlord's INTEREST SECURED. 

Then, again, there is the interest of the landlord if he wishes to avoid 
the risk of having a tenant rack-rented, not only in his own rent, but in 
the tenant-right for which he pays to the out-going tenant. The land- 
lord may fairly plead — at any rate, the Bill admits it — that the tenant- 
right may rack-rent the incoming tenant as much as an extravagant 
rent. Be it right or wrong, we have provided in the Bill for that, and 
all that we' have heard of successive sales of tenant-right — rising one 
above another — is utterly inapplicable to the Bill. The first clause of 
the Bill provides for it. Hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this 
subject have only read the first limb of the first sentence of the first 
clause. It says that the tenant shall be allowed to sell his tenant-right 
for the best price that lie can obtain. Hon. gentlemen read so far, and 
no farther. But if they went on, they would find that the tenant is 
required to give notice to the landlord, and the landlord, on receiving 



18 Sjoeeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

that notice, may agree with the tenant on the amount of the tenant- 
right that the outgoing man is to receive ; and, if he cannot agree with 
the tenant, he may take him into the Court for the purpose. Thus the 
two items of the landlord's interest are secured — his interest as to the 
rent/ by his power of raising the rent ; his interest as to the tenant- 
right, by his power of taking the tenant into Court. But it may be 
said, " Why don't you give him a wider power still, and allow him 
always to go into Court "? " That is a fair question for discussion, and 
we have well considered it. But I think the House will probably agree 
in our conclusion that the wiser course is that which we have adopted. 
In the strange state of things which has prevailed in Ireland the Court 
has been looked upon as a sort of Paradise into which everybody would 
rush. That is not our view at all in the matter. We conceive that the 
action of the Court must impose considerable burdens on small owners 
who cannot undertake to pay the expenses of civil litigation ; and the 
expenses of civil litigation, however you may control them, must be 
severely felt by the poor man and the small man. To the landlord the 
expenses frequently may be light ; to the tenant they may be very 
severe. But, be it understood, it is in the indiscriminate power of the 
landlord to go into Court. Let that matter be argued in Committee if 
there is any question about it. We shall hear what is to be said, with 
perfect Avillingness to be convinced if good and sufficient reasons can be 
given ; but we have not acted without reason or consideration in the 
course we have taken. I have shown also that it is totally inaccurate 
to say that the landlord has no power of going into Court, because, in 
the matter of tenant-right, which he can check in no other way, this 
Bill authorizes him to go into the Court. In the 3rd sub-section of the 
1st clause it is stated that, on receiving notice, the landlord may pur- 
chase the tenancy for such amount as may be agreed upon, or, in the 
event of disagreement, as may be settled by the Court. The resort to 
the Court is there as clearly indicated as can be. [Sir R. Assheton 
Cross : When is that power given ?] When there is a change of 
tenancy. The 1st clause says : — 

" On receiving such notice the landlord may purchase the tenancy for such sum 
as may be agreed upon, or, in the event of disagreement, may be settled by the Court 
to be the value thereof." 

That contemplates most distinctly the case when the tenancy passes 
from one person to another ; but I do not believe the words convey that 
it is to be a resumption of the land by permanent ^possession on the 
part of the landlord. The landlord may agree with the tenant upon 
the sum to be paid for the purchase, or he may have the sum fixed by 
the Court. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COURT. 

And now I will take the question of the constitution of the Court. 
I own this matter has received from one of the Members for the 
University of Dublin such discussion in detail as I have hardly ever 
known given upon the second reading of a Bill, and with a warmth and 
vehemence such as I have scarcely ever seen exceeded even by him. 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 1 9 

This is a matter necessarily of detail, lor consideration and adjustment. 
I am bound, however, to make an admission in passing. In one point 
this Bill, for which, I think, the draftsman cannot be too much praised, 
whatever judgment its authors may deserve, does not exactly .correspond 
with our intention. Our intention was to give an option of ]Dassing by 
the Civil Bill Court, if it was decided so to act ; but it was also thought 
there should be power of going into the Civil Bill Court. The tenant, 
we thought, should have the power, if he pleased, of going to the Com- 
mission, or the agent of the Commission at once. I put it respectfully 
to hon. gentlemen, whether it is desirable to go further than that 1 I 
am not now raising the question of the arrangements to be made for the 
conduct of proceedings in the Civil Bill Courts ; but I submit it would 
not have been wise wholly to pass by a body of gentlemen who have 
had an opportunity under the Land Act of acquiring a mass of experi- 
ence such as is not possessed by any other body of gentlemen in Ireland. 
I will go one step further, and say I cannot for myself— it may be owing 
to my ignorance — think, upon the figures, that the result of actions in 
the Civil Bill Court has been very discreditable. Hon. gentlemen who 
are lawyers will be able to form a much better judgment than I can in 
this matter ; but I invite attention to these facts. For the four years 
previous to 1877 — before that time we have no available account — we 
have the number of land claims which were entered before the Court. 
These claims were 1,688. The appeals tried from these cases were 212. 
The judgments confirmed were 140, and, so far as I can make out from 
the figures, there were 50 judgments which have been reversed, upon a 
total of 1,688 cases tried — that is to say, 3 per'cent., which means that 
32 out of every 33 men who came before the Civil Bill Court had justice 
done to them. I cannot suppose that will be considered a very unsatis- 
factory result. I can hardly think the Court deserves the severity of 
j udgment which has been pronounced by some. Great fault is found 
with the Bill because of what it is said may be done by our Commis- 
sioner or by his deputy, and the most dreadful pictures have been 
painted of the consequences of placing powers in the hands of incom- 
petent men. We shall be very glad to hear in Committee of any safe- 
guards that can be provided ; but the House will bear in mind this fact. 
It is hardly possible to forecast the details of the probable transactions 
under this Bill. No one can tell where they will rise — how the}^ will 
rise — in what part of the country they will rise. 

This leads me to another remark on the speech of the hon. and 
learned Member for Antrim. He complained that the Bill was not 
sufficiently elastic. How does he propose to make it more elastic in 
this matter of the Court ? He said : " Why do you not appoint two 
Commissioners for each Province ? " How do we know what will be 
requisite for each Province ? In one Province there may be little or no 
demand. In Leinster and Ulster, for example, it is possible the demand 
will be very different from what it will be in the other Provinces. 
What we propose is, not that a multitude of public officers should be 
created before we know whether there shall be any duties for them to 
perform; but that officers of the Court may be appointed as necessity 
arises and according to the measure of the necessity. So much for 



20 Speeches oj Bight Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

certain of the points raised ; and as to the very important point of a fair 
rent, one of the Members for the University of Dublin condemns our 
proposal as undoubted confiscation tempered and flavoured with 
cowardice ; while other hon. gentlemen, more moderate in their mode 
of looking at the measure, think that the words we have used are 
defective, and even dangerous. I see the senior Member for the 
University (Mr. Plunket) in his place, and I must pay him a deserved 
compliment. I do not think it was possible to submit arguments more 
calmly, clearly, or more fairly to the consideration of the House than 
he did. 

Let me endeavour to go through the points of this question, and in 
doing so, I shall make another more agreeable reference to the hon. and 
learned Member for Antrim. He made a remark with which I, for one, 
most cordially agree. He said the very terms " fair rent " conveyed 
their own meaning. They are really the charter of those who are 
interested in fair rents ; but it is a question, and a very difficult question, 
to know how far we can go in development, in restriction, and in direc- 
tion. I have to admit, however, that the Government are not very 
proud of their workmanship in this portion of their undertaking, and I 
hope it may be amended, and materially amended, in Committee. But, 
at the present moment, my wish is to draw in the clearest manner a 
distinction between that which is essential and that which is secondary 
and accidental in this clause. And here I must complain of the right 
hon. and learned gentleman the late Attorney-General for Ireland 
(Mr. Gibson). He holds that, according to the best legal construction, 
the proceedings of the Court would be carried on thus : a certain rent 
would be fixed, and then a tenant-right outside Ulster equivalent to 
seven years' rent will be deducted from that original rent. Now we 
protest altogether against that method of deduction ; it is not the manner, 
so far as I know, in which these things are conducted in Ireland now. 
In this very difficult business it is some comfort to recollect that this 
subjectof rents is not new to Irish lawyers and Irish Judges; in Ulster 
it has been before them for some time ; and in other parts of Ireland it 
has come before them in cases of eviction under the operation of the 
Land Act. I must go a little further and complain that the right hon. 
and learned gentleman not only put a construction upon the clause by 
interpolating words of his own into it that are not there ; but he then 
went on to exhibit his own method in a supposed case, stating his argu- 
ment on an altogether fallacious basis. He imagined a case in which 
he supposed the fair rent in the market was ^24. The fair rent in the 
market ! That was his starting-point in this great argument ; but that 
starting-point is poisoned with a fallacy from the beginning. Our whole 
contention is, that these words, ap]3lied to Ireland generally — " a fair 
rent in the market " — are words involving a contradiction in terms, for 
the rent in the market is not a fair rent. Consequently, everytliing that 
the right hon. and learned gentleman founded upon that fallacious 
assumption was as fallacious as the assumption from which he started. 
The essence of this clause really must be considered apart from par- 
ticular words which one person or another may desire to add to the 
description of that essence, I believe we were right in requiring that 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 21 

tlie Court shall hear and take into consideration all the circumstances of 
the case. Beyond that, what we feel is this : there is one circumstance 
of the case so important, so paramount for every settlement of the 
cjuestion, that we must take notice of it, and that is the tenant's interest. 
We cannot leave that covered up by any general expression of " all the 
circumstances of the case." We are bound to point to the tenant's 
interest. Now no one can say, I think, that there has been any reti- 
cence on the part of the Government as to what the interest of the 
tenant is. My right hon. and learned friend the Attorney- General for 
Ireland said most truly that if you were to admit this doctrine of deduc- 
tion it would be a deduction from the top-market rent, and not from the 
fair rent. Now, supposing the case of a top-market rent in Ireland, 
what does that include as a general rule ? In the first place, it includes 
annual payment for the value of the tenant's improvements, and that is 
the first and the greatest element of legitimate tenant-right. In the 
second place, it includes the excess which is found in open biddings for 
holdings in Ireland in consequence of the scarcity of land as compared 
with the demand for it. Just as in buying a curiosity in this country, 
the buyer will go far beyond the intrinsic value in the price he gives, 
simj)ly because the article is rare, so, under the necessity of a_ much 
sterner order in Ireland, in bidding for land the bidder is ready to give 
more than he really ought to give, or can properly afi"ord to give. And 
that excess in bidding for the land, owing to the scarcity of land in 
Ireland, is the second and remaining element of tenant-right. 

And here I come to the very fair and pertinent question of the 
senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). I say that 
neither of these elements of value'belongs to the landlord. Both of them 
form constituent parts of the tenant-right, and those taken together may 
be said very fairly, in general terms, to constitute that v/hich the tenant 
has to sell. Now it has been supposed to be absurd to make any 
reference in this matter to the compensation for disturbance and for im- 
provements under the Land Act, and I admit, as the clause now stands, 
the words have too exclusive prominence given to them. They stand as 
if they were the only thing to be looked at outside Ulster, at all events, 
as requiring definite notice, v/hereas they are not. But, on the other 
hand, gentlemen must recollect that these words are most important 
and operative words under the Land Act of 1870. Under that Act as it 
passed this House and went to the House of Lords, it stood thus — that 
no yearly tenant could be evicted from his holding without being com- 
pensated for his improvements and for disturbance, on a scale with a 
maximum of seven years. Well, the effect of that was that the Act, as 
it went from this House, permitted assignment, and that assignment con- 
stituted tenant-right. I challenge contradiction to that statement. The 
place of a man whose holding was the means of livelihood was a thing 
worth paying for, and the people are willing to pay for it. The com- 
plaint is that they pay too much, and when we said to the holders of 
land—" We will fortify your position by taking care that you shall not 
be removed from it," we gave them virtually the tenant-right, and a real 
interest in the holding. But what was done in the House of Lords ? A 
prohibition to assign. Although, however, the property was made in- 



22 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

alienable, though the privilege of alienation was unfortunately taken 
away, yet the property itself remains ; and upon cases of eviction how 
is the thing worked 1 I am not now speaking of eviction for non- 
payment of rent, but of those cases — haj)pily, I believe, not very 
numerous — where the eviction has been of a more arbitrary kind. In 
those cases what happens is this : The landlord has evicted, the tenant 
claimed compensation for disturbance, the landlord looked out for 
another tenant ; that other tenant, and not the landlord, has paid to 
the outgoing man the compensation for disturbance ; and that is the 
basis of the tenant-right. Depend upon it, under the operation of the 
Land Act there have been at work causes which, gradually but surely, 
have tended to the distinct development of a system of tenant-right 
in all agricultural holdings of Ireland ; and not only so, but have 
tended to give to that tenant-right a form corresponding in the main to 
the compensation for disturbance and compensation for improvements. 

I have explained, therefore, what the tenant has to transfer. I say he 
has to transfer these improvements ; and if he is in a position fortified 
by compensation for disturbance, his holding being a means of liveli- 
hood, which it is worth another man's while to pay for, he has got 
this apart from the landlord ; and it is perfectly fair and just that you 
should not interpose any obstacle. Therefore, in our view, the tenant- 
right in Ireland is made up of elements neither of which belongs to the 
landlord, and which no landlord except an unjust landlord — and the 
case I trust is exceptional — endeavours to convert to his own profit. 
But an unjust landlord must be prepared to be interfered with. We 
will not undertake to respect the use he has made of the peculiar cir- 
cumstances of the country and of the long and favourable presumptions 
of the Legislature towards him, or allow his doing less than justice to 
those who stand towards him in the relation of social inferiors and 
dependants. 

I trust, then, it will be understood that, in considering tenant-right, 
these, and these only, are the elements which, so far as our views go, 
the Court will be entitled to exact. We assert distinctly and maintain 
that such is the legitimate basis of tenant-right over and above improve- 
ments ; but we assert also that that is an element which forms no part 
whatever of a landlord's legitimate rent, which consequently is not to be 
deducted from the rent, and constitutes no interference with it at all. 
I will not enter into further detail on this question. We shall have 
other opportunities of doing so. 

THE TRULY WISE LANDLORD. 

The principles of this Bill I have never heard once described in any 
speech from the opposite side of the House during this debate . Every 
observation that has been made has gone, as it has apjDeared to me, upon 
bye-points — for I call just and fair rent, however vital it may be, a bye- 
point. If we admit fair rent, you will, I hope, hold us bound to give a 
substantial meaning to those words ; but it is a bye-point. I have, how- 
ever, heard the principles of the Bill excellently described by those gen- 
tlemen who have studied the Bill on this side of the House. My hon. 
friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Lytton) perfectly comprehended it, 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 23 

The basis of it lies in the land-scarcity of Ireland, and its principle is 
this — in the first place, a frank acceptance of the Irish custom, and 
especially this custom of tenant-right. And now I am going to make 
an observation — not dogmatically ; but I must say that, in my reading 
about land in Ireland, it has often occurred to me that the truly wise 
landlord in Ireland was the man who not only was liberal to his tenants, 
but who gave to that liberality a form and method of application adapted 
to the usages of the country. I do firmly believe that there are many 
wise, good, and enlightened landlords in Ireland, using those words in 
the general sense, who have freely spent money and parted with money 
for the sake of what they thought doing their duty, but who would have 
done their duty more profitably for themselves, and more advantageously 
to the country, if they had been less intent ujoon importing exotic habits 
into the country, and more inclined to allow the people to work accord- 
ing to their usages and traditions. At any rate, I hope lion, gentlemen 
will see from our point of view that nothing is so plain as the duty of 
accepting the principle of tenant-right. I cannot say with what satis- 
faction I listened to the able speech of my noble friend the Member for 
Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington) upon this subject. His father. Lord 
Portsmouth, is one of those who tell you plainly, as I understand him, 
that he does not come before you in the character of a martyr or a 
victim. He does not say he has suffered by his practice to his tenants-; 
but he has said that the frank allowance of tenant-right has been most 
profitable to himself. That has been the result of universal experience 
in Ireland, and it is established by the experience of Ulster. Whatever 
you may say of the extensive and almost unintelligible prices which are 
sometimes obtained there for tenant-right, it is undeniable that whereas, 
in general, rents in Ireland have grown much more slowly than in 
England or Scotland, the slowness of their growth is really to be attri- 
buted to the insecurity of the tenant. Equally undeniable is it that 
within Ireland itself, if you compare the growth in Ulster, where there 
was tenant-right, to the growth in the other three provinces, where there 
was none, it has been far more rapid in Ulster ; and that is entirely 
owing to the fact and presence of tenant-right. 

Some gentlemen have referred to speeches of mine, and have put me 
back to what is a very unacceptable task — that of reading them over 
again — but I must say that there is only one important particular in my 
speeches of 1870 — to which I will at present refer — which I do not 
strictly and literally abide by. The principles upon which we have 
proceeded are, first, a perfectly frank acceptance of Irish custom ; and, 
secondly, what is undoubtedly a great departure from the principles of 
free contract — namely, the introduction of judicial authority to settle a 
grievance between man and man with regard to agricultural holdings. 
Sir, I do not for a moment disguise the magnitude of that proposal. It 
is, if I may say so, the one really Radical proposal in this Bill. It is the 
one and only proposal that involves a strong and sharp departure from 
ordinary principles for the regulation of private affairs. I do not dis- 
guise it. But I ask you to observe this — First, it is required by the cir- 
cumstances of the country ; and, secondly, it is lunited by those 
provisions which we have introduced, and which in every case, though 



24 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

no notice has been taken of it, liave left it open to parties to return, when 
they conveniently can, to the ordinary principles of contract. 

Are we justified in introducing this Radical proposal for committing 
to a court the regulation of these private anid personal appeals ? In 
presenting this Bill to the House I stated what were not the reasons 
which, in my opinion, would justify it, and also what the reasons were 
which would. The necessity which I pleaded was a necessity, in the 
first place, arising from the unprecedented position of Ireland with 
regard to the pressure of the demand for land as compared with the 
supply ; and, secondly, the unfortunate hut inevitable results of the 
conduct of harsh and grasping and even cruel landlords, who, though 
few in proportion to the whole, have it fatally in their power to com- 
promise the best interests of other men. I also quoted authority — and 
I have heard no one from the opposite side of the House make any 
reference to the authorities under which we are acting — I pointed out 
that the Commissioners had recommended the introduction of this great 
innovation. I will now refer to one Commissioner who sits before me 
— namely the lion. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He is 
one of the fathers of this Bill. Far be it from me to say he has ever 
owned it, or even made the smallest confession in that direction. But 
in ascribing it to him I am doing him an honour. He is not aware of 
the extent of his connexion with this Bill. I will also refer to two 
persons who, when the Land Act of 1870 was nnder discussion in this 
House, recommended the reference of these matters to a court. One of 
them is a nobleman who is still alive — I mean Lord Winmarleigh. The 
other was the eminent man whose loss you are — and I cannot wonder at 
it — now deeply mourning. In 1870 Mr. Disraeli said — 

" If a man without a lease, and who has paid his rent, is evicted, let his case go 
before the tribunal you shall appoint ; let the Judge investigate all the elements of 
the equity of the case ; and let Ihim come to a decision which on one side shall 
guard the tenant from coercion, and, on the other, preserve the landlord from 
fraud." — [3 Hansard, cxcix. 1821.] 

That, of course, is the object of the new court. Therefore you have in 
those words the substance of this tremendous proposal. I shall now 
read the words of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who has put 
his hand to this paragraph : — 

" Bearing in mind the system by which the improvements and equipments of a 
farm are very generally the work of the tenant, and the fact that a yearly tenant is 
at any time liable to have his rent raised by the increased value given to his holding 
by the expenditure of his capital and labour, legislative interference to protect him 
from an arbitrary increase of rent does not seem unnatural, and we are inclined to 
think that by the majority of landowners a measure properly framed to accomphsh 
this end would not be objected to." 

I understand the hon. gentleman to point to what I may call the pre- 
amble of the sentence. [Mr. Chaplin : Read the next paragraph.] I 
have not got it here ; but the next paragraph treats of the three "Fs," and 
we have not proposed the three " F's." I will come to that by-and-by. 
The hon. Member is quite justified in pointing out that the preamble to 
this sentence has reference exclusively to improvements. That is quite 



I 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 25 

true \ "but tlie enacting part has not. If the hon. Memher had been 
content to say in his report — " In consequence of the arbitrary increase 
of rent put upon the improvements of the tenant, we, the Commis- 
sioners, recommend that his improvem nts shall be protected by the 
intervention of a court," that would have been one thing. But that is 
not what he has done. He has recommended the intervention of the 
court for the purpose of preventing all cases of an arbitrary increase of 
rent. But an arbitrary increase of rent is not limited to the tenant's 
improvements. It includes the swallowing up of the tenant's interest, 
and taking advantage of his property and the state of the market, to get 
more than the commodity is worth. The hon. gentleman, in recom- 
mending that the tenant shall be protected against an arbitrary increase 
of rent, without limiting that recommendation in the slightest degree to 
the particular case of improvements, has made himseK responsible for 
the great and the only violent recommendation of this Bill. 

I admit the Commissioners have said nothing at all excepting about 
rent. They have said nothing about tenant-right ; they have said nothing 
about security and fixity of tenure. Did the Commissioners really 
suppose that you could bring in a court to determine rent and entirely 
refuse to take cognizance of the question of security of tenure ? Is it 
possible to say — " A Commission shall determine the rent to-day, and 
the landlord shall, if he please, put out the man to-morrow ? " The 
hon. Member will not rise and answer that question, although I paid 
him the compliment of ascribing to him the paternity of the Bill. The 
hon. gentleman will see that, if you authorize the court to fix the rent, 
it necessarily involves some duration of the rent. If you involve some 
duration of the rent you are fixing it, and between you and us the 
difference is only one of degree. We have not said rents shall be per- 
petual. We have introduced provisions by which they may be refixed 
from time to time, as circumstances would arise. In the same way with 
tenant-right, I do not believe the hon. Member, and I feel sure that no 
Member for Ireland, will say that when a court has fixed judicially the 
rent of a holding and given to that rent a certain term of years through 
which it shall exist indefeasibly, except by the fault of the tenant, the 
tenant's interest should not be an interest saleable in the market. These 
three things are inseparable. They are three strands of one cord, and 
they are absolutely indefeasible. We have largely qualified them all ; 
but to have attempted to deal with one of them ancl not made a con- 
sistent whole would, in my opinion, have proved totally unworthy of 
the great question with which we have to deal. 

We have, therefore, I admit, with reference to the very grave circum- 
stances of Ireland, made this great" departure from the principles of free 
contract. But with that great departure we have combined provisions 
to enable the parties to return to free contract when they may find it 
expedient to do so. And, lastly, one of the principles of the Bill is in 
a set of provisions intended to jjromote and further the acquisition of 
capital and of a permanent proprietary interest, and advances of public 
money for certain other important purposes. 

Under these circumstances I must own it is with the deepest regret 
that I have observed the conduct of the party opposite on this occasion. 



26 S'peeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

I am very sorry that the noble Lord the Memher for Haddingtonshire 
(Lord Elcho) is not in the House. The Opposition are going to support 
him in the assertion that — 

" " The leading provisions of the Land Law (Leland) Bill are in the main econo- 
mically unsound, unjust, and impolitic." 

My noble friend delivered his speech with such good humour, and was 
himseK so obviously pleased with what fell from his lips, that it became 
infectious throughout the House. I myself was not insensible to the 
charm of it ; and, I must say, it was an excellent example of a speech 
in which an experienced Member of Parliament showed that you may 
say very strong things without'giving offence. He gave no offence to me ; 
but I am sorry to say that he misapprehended and misunderstood the 
case, greatly, I think, to his own prejudice. Is it possible that any 
gentleman on the opposite side of the House can think that he is pro- 
moting either the interest of his party or of the country by representing 
that this Bill gives perpetuity of tenure, perpetual fixity of rent, and 
unlimited tenant right ? As a matter of fact, the tenant-right is limited ; 
the judicial rent is rent only for a term ; and the security or possession 
given to the tenant is not only defeasible in consequence of his own 
breach of contract, but also after the first 15 years, which, after all, is 
not perpetuity. It is also defeasible if the landlord is able to make out 
a reasonable and sufficient case for resumption. We may be right or we 
may be wrong ; but why begin the unfortunate course of inflaming and 
exaggerating your statement of the provisions of the Bill ? Surely it 
was a case in which the public interest, and, most of all, your own 
interests, would make it desirable that you should understand everything 
in as favourable a sense as reason will permit you to attach to it. 

So far as we are concerned, I am not complaining of what you have 
done ; I am not at all sure that your conduct has been adverse to our 
Bill. Your censures and denunciations have gone forth through the 
length and breadth of Ireland as the strongest testimonials on behalf of 
our measure to secure to it the adhesion of the people ; and I think it 
is very likely that you may have induced by your statements — entirely 
outstripping the fact — some persons in Ireland to think that the Bill 
contains what it does not contain. It is a very large and strong measure ; 
it is a measure as large, I hope, as the necessities of that country demand. 
But we have carefully endeavoured to prevent its wanton or its needless 
enlargement, and to leave every ground and every opening for the 
maintenance of the present social relations in Ireland, and likewise for 
the return of that which we know to be the best system for the cultiva- 
tion of land under all normal circumstances — namely, a system where 
its particulars are arranged by free discussion between one man and 
another. 

" WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ? " 

That being so, what are the party opposite going to do ? The noble 
lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) has 
given notice of a hostile amendment. Everybody knows that the 
meaning of an amendment on the second reading is not only opposition 



The Second Reading of Irish Land Bill. 27 

to the Bill, \mi it is the extreme form of opposition to the Bill. The 
noble Lord, however, who has been a member of several Cabinets, has 
not only given notice of an amendment, but has announced that he is 
going to vote for the amendment of the noble lord the Member for 
Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). I presume that he made that announce- 
ment on behalf of his colleagues. In the notice of the noble lord the 
Member for North Leicestershire, I perceive the first effect of the death 
of Lord Beaconsfield. If he had lived that notice would not, in my 
opinion, have been given. I have had an experience of Lord Beacons- 
field from a pose opposite to me ; but it has been a long experience ; 
and you do not remain wholly ignorant of a man with whom, on a 
thousand questions, you are obliged, however unequally, to measure 
swords. When, sir, a Liberal Government came into office in 1868, 
and proposed the disestablishment of the Irish Church, it would have 
been in the power of Lord Beaconsfield, if he had thought fit, to have 
prolonged the contest for years. On the contrary, I have not a doubt 
that Lord Beaconsfield thought that the issue was certain, and that for 
every interest — for the interest of the country, for the interests of his 
party and his own — the sooner the goal was reached the better. He 
might have, I believe, taken the same course of prolonging the contest 
on the Land Bill of 1870 ; and that Bill, relatively to the circumstances 
in which it was introduced, was quite as great an innovation — quite as 
daring a measure of remedy — estimated with reference to what went 
before, as the present Bill when regarded with reference to the measure 
of 1870. 

Well, what is intended to be done now ? Do you who sit opposite 
think — is there any one of you who thinks — that this question will ever 
be settled by a measure smaller than the Bill before the House ? And 
if by powerful combination, beginning below the Gangway, among a 
limited number, but still not of unimportant persons, and carried on 
elsewhere with stronger ties and ramifications — if you thus succeed is 
overthrowing this Bill, and the Government which attaches its fortune 
to this Bill, and if you take their places, you will pass, not a smaller 
but a larger measure. Nor am I the first person who has said this. I 
know not if the hon. gentleman the Member for the City of Cork 
(Mr. Parnell) is in his place. I hold in my hand a speech which he 
delivered on the 6th of December last at Waterford, and which I read 
with great interest ; but I am not going to quote from it for the purpose 
of making any charge against him. It was jperfectly natural of him to 
say what he did. He began by predicting that if Mr. Gladstone should 
proceed to legislate on the Irish Land Question he would infallibly break 
up liis Cabinet, " and that," he added, " would be rather unfortunate, or 
it may seem to be rather unfortunate, for us ; but I do not think the 
event will prove that it is unfortunate for us." He goes on to say that 
for England it would be unfortunate ; but for him, with his views, it 
would not be unfortunate. The meaning, sir, is plain. The hon. 
gentleman knows well that if the ]Darty ojjposite came into office they 
would, under pressure, as they have done before, bring in a larger Bill 
than this ; and that the words " fraud, force, and folly," as applied to 
the three " F.'s," would gradually dwindle and grow pale, and that the 



Speeclies-of Right Hon. William Swart Gladstone, M.P. 



lion. Member might wave Ms flag of triumph over a measure passed by 
a Conservative Government of which, perhaps, some Conservatives 
would themselves be heard to say, the landlords scowling in the back- 
ground — " how much more liberal a measure it is, after all, than that 
which was brought forward by the Liberal Party." 

But hon. gentlemen opposite are judges of their o^vn conduct. The 
matter, however, is one of a serious character. We are playing with 
edged tools in the state Ireland is now in. There is not a step which we 
have taken in reference to this measure which has not been taken under 
an overwhelming sense of responsibility. We do not mean to trifle with 
that which Ave have taken in hand. You must judge of your own duty ; 
we must judge of ours. We shall use every effort legitimately belong- 
ing to us : first, to pass this Bill ; secondly, to pass it speedily ; and, 
thirdly, to pass it in an effectual form. My right hon. friend (Mr. W. E. 
Forster) has been charged, I think, needlessly — I do not see that his 
words gave the slightest colour to the charge — with having given an 
intimation that we' should haughtily refuse to discuss Amendments in 
the Bill. No, sir, we have no such intention. I am not looking to one 
quarter of the House in preference to another. In proportion to our 
intense anxiety to be the bearers of some message of peace and good to 
Ireland is our willingness and desire to receive, from whatever quarter 
it may come, assistance in bringing the Bill as nearly as may be to per- 
fection. We are not so vain as to think our first effort within the walls 
of the Cabinet room enable us to dispense with all the criticism, sugges- 
tions, and improvements which the intellect and ingenuity of this great 
assembly may furnish. But permit me to say — and I hope I shall not 
be misunderstood — not on the ground of any will or decision of ours, but 
because of the logical law of events, that nothing appears to me so 
unlikely as that the Bill should be to any great extent changed. Were 
it to be vitally and fundamentally changed, in the sense of the amend- 
ment of the noble lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, the people of 
Ireland, it may be assumed, would reject it as one man. But there is 
another construction to be jout on the suggestion of change, and I have 
to suppose the case of a fundamental alteration in a sense which a 
portion of the Irish Members may desire. In considering that matter, 
among other points, I cannot exclude from our consideration that the 
settlement of this question does not depend on the judgment of this 
House alone. There is another assembly which we must confront where 
we are in a small minority; but which will claim, and is constitutionally 
entitled, to give its independent vote on the provisions of this Bill. If 
we hold by those provisions, I am so confident of their general character 
— I am so deeply x^ersuaded of their general moderation, as well_ as 
efliciency — that 1 feel we can with a good conscience and with a sanguine 
hope address ourselves to whatever duties may belong to us for the pur- 
pose of the prompt passing of this Bill. But, if they see we are prepared 
to alter its character, in what is called the popular sense ; and, having 
brought it in as one measure, to send it up to them as another ; most 
justly might those who Avill have elsewhere to pronounce upon it say— 
" We are dealing with a set of men who do not know their own minds, 
and we refuse to defer to their authority." 



Fair Trade, 29 

I am, therefore, well convinced tliat tlie nature of this Bill, although. 
it may be, as I have admitted, open to criticism in some particulars, is, 
nevertheless, of such a character that the ultimate choice of Parliament 
will be between the Bill in its essence or nothing ; between the accept- 
ance or the rejection of the Bill on the lines on which it now stands. 
As I have said, we on this side will not shrink from the j)erformance of 
our part, for if we did there would be no condemnation too severe to 
pass on us for our rashness and temerity. At this crisis I gratefully 
acknowledge the spirit in which this Bill has been generally received in 
Ireland. The landlords of Ireland showed in 1870 that they were not 
deficient in penetration. They were, I believe, at that time as much as 
they are now under the impression that their true interest is to have 
this question settled, and to have it settled at once. I gratefully ac- 
knowledge the generous reception which our proposals have received in 
Ireland, They have been received there as by men who have felt the 
force of the evils pressing upon them, and who were desirous of hailing 
the advent of whatever would give fair promise of offering a remedy. 
Let that generous reception in Ireland be met by a corresponding feeling 
on this side of the Channel, and within the Avails of these great Legisla- 
tive Assemblies.^ Then the j^ear 1881 will not have passed away with- 
out adding to the Statute Book another great emancipating and redeem- 
ing measure, necessary alike for the prosperity of Ireland, the fame of 
Parliament, and the strength and solidity of the United Kingdom. 



FAIR TKADE. 

\AT LKJiDS, OCTOBER 7 and 8, 1881.) 

I AM very sorry to exchange the delightful business of listening to 
the music we have just heard for the active office of providing you with 
sound of a far inferior order. But necessity, ladies and gentlemen, is 
laid upon me, and will excuse me in your eyes. With respect to the 
mass of the addresses which I have just received from the hands of 
so many good and gallant soldiers in a good cause, I will only venture 
to assure you in general that these addresses and the circumstances 
under which they have been presented to me will not pass away from 
my mind as readily as I was compelled to discharge them from my hand, 
in order that I might not appear before you in an unbecoming position. 
The contents of these addresses, gentlemen, so far as they have been 
read, or as I am acquainted with them, introduce a variety of topics, 
from which I can only during this visit to Leeds attempt to make 
a selection, and even with the whole of that selection I shall not attempt 



30 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone, M.P. 

to deal upon this single occasion. But tliere are two expressions, two 
sentiments that have come before me of which I am desirous to take 
special notice. I begin in the first place with the address which was 
read from the Association of which you (Mr. Kitson) are the head. In 
that address, almost affectionate, and certainly touching in its terms, I 
received no expression with greater gratification than that in which it 
was generously said that you believed that to whatever party I belonged 
in the course of my life I had acted with a sincere desire for the public 
good. I will not affect to disclaim that statement, because I really 
believe it to be true. And, moreover, I sometimes think — though I am 
in many points much misunderstood — that the fact of my having in 
view the public good, with a true and earnest purpose, was of itself 
a very great assistance in the enlightenment of my mind upon those 
points upon which it required to be enlightened, and has helped to land 
me, gentlemen, in the ranks of the party with which I have now 
in general acted for 35 years, and of which, during the short remainder 
of Life, I hope to be, and am convinced I shall be, a sympathising and 
an earnest member. 

THE OLD CONSERVATIVE PARTY. 

1 wish to say one word of the Conservative party as it was in the time 
when I was associated with it. It was then led by Sir Eobert Peel and 
the Duke of Wellington—two illustrious names which never can be 
heard in this assembly, or in any assembly of Englishmen like this, 
except with cordial respect and veneration. And I rejoice to say, 
gentlemen, of the Conservative party of that day, that it was associated 
with you in what are now many of your most distinctive principles. 
The Liberal party of that period — I mean between tlie first Reform Act 
and the repeal of tlie Corn Laws — was attached to public economy and 
purity of administration ; but the Conservative party of that period 
maintained no unequal rivalry with you in the pursuit of those great 
objects. They were common — I say it fearlessly — they were common 
and without distinction to all parties. And I wish I could always see in 
every gentleman who calls himself a Liberal the same sense of strict 
public duty in regard to economy in public expenditure which was as 
characteristic of Sir Robert Peel — I will even venture to say — as it was of 
the distinguished and admirable, altliough now nearly perhaps forgotten, 
public servant, Joseph Hume. Not in respect of these^ subjects alone, 
but in regard to a matter which has a large place in your hearts 
and understandings— in regard to foreign policy — I say it fearlessly, that 
there are two principles of enormous weight in which I, at least, have 
had nothing to change — the principle that every other country is to be 
credited with the same good motives as ourselves until it has given 
proof to the contrary, and that every Power, great and small, is entitled 
to exactly the same rights and exactly the same treatment. I will say 
that that was as distinctive a principle of the Conservative party 
together with the Liberals of those days as it is of the Liberal party 
now. And yet once more, that which is called the policy of peace, that 
which is so often held up as a mark of ridicule and scof&ng in the Tory 
meetings of to-day — that policy of peace was as dear to Sir Robert 



Fair Trade. 31 



Peel, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Aberdeen, and was as sedulously 
and fearlessly pursued by them as it ever has been, or ever can be, by 
any public man in the service of his country. 

HIS SUCCESSORS. 

In one other preliminary remark in these addresses reference has been 
made to my past in terms too indulgent, and to my future, I am afraid, 
in terms too hopeful. It is not for me, gentlemen, at my time of life, 
with my nearness to its inevitable close, to anticipate those future years 
of strength and of service which you are good enough to desire on my 
behalf. But yet, gentlemen, though I don't indulge in any such antici- 
pations, — for I confess that I feel that repose of mind and reflection on 
other matters are more appropriate to the latest stage of this our human 
existence, — yet I don't on that account look forward with the slightest 
lack of confidence to your future as the Liberal party of this country. 
Whenever it may be my duty to hand over the charge that is now 
intrusted to me, little worthy as I am, I shall hand it over to men who 
already possess your confidence — who already have proved in many a 
well-fought field what mettle they are made of. I do not mean only 
to speak of one whose distinguished name is dear to every heart among 
you — I mean my excellent ftiend Mr. Bright — because he, too, is but 
one stage behind me in the journey through the vale of years ; but 
I speak of Lord Granville, of whom most intimate, almost daily, com- 
munication during many anxious years has given me the most thorough 
knowledge of his great abilities, of his admirable devotion to the service 
of his country, and of his capacity to serve it, if Providence should 
so ordain, in a yet higher place. I speak of Lord Granville, and I 
speak of Lord Hartington, who, in the struggles of the House of 
Commons, has likewise earned the confidence of the country, and has 
enabled you to build your high expectations of his future upon an ample 
experience of what he has been to you , in the past. And therefore I 
look forward with confidence to the Liberal party as in no degree 
dependent upon the slender thread, as yet unbroken, of my own political 
life. 

I believe, gentlemen, and I think you believe with me, that under all 
ordinary and normal circumstances, though this country is divided 
between two classes of political opinions, the Liberal opinion is that of 
the majority of the people ; and I go a little further and say this : when 
we were defeated in 1874 we were not defeated through the energies and 
the growth of Toryism, but we were defeated by divisions that had 
unhappily insinuated themselves amongst us. And it was not the 
absolute breaking up of the party, for that, of course, was a thing never 
dreamt of ; but it was the prevalence of perhaps some sectional ideas or 
the natural and necessary shortcomings, or at any rate the actual short- 
comings of myself and of others who led them — at any rate it was our 
own divisions — it was because our several regiments did not march 
steadily up to the breach in 1874 that we were in a minority in the last 
Parliament. What I wish to say to you, gentlemen, is this — I see no 
signs of such divisions now. I doubt whether for 30 years — I mean 
since the great Free Trade struggle — the Liberal party, speaking gene- 



32 Sjoeeches of Right Hon. William Bwart Gladstone, M.P. 

rally, lias been in a state so healthy ; and never have I had occasion so 
much to appreciate, along with its generous indulgence, the signs of that 
cordial union as during the anxiou-s experiences of the long session of 
Parliament just passed. Therefore, gentlemen, as you may look back 
with confidence upon your past, so I say fearlessly you may rely upon 
your future. It depends upon yourselves to maintain that energetic 
union. If there were any needless divisions in 1874, I think the conse- 
quences of those divisions have administered an altogether suflS.cient 
warning, and that if we erred in the past, we are not likely to fall into 
these errors again. 

"why I AM MEMBER FOR MIDLOTHIAN." 

I came to Leeds for the proper and primary purpose, not of repaying, 
but to acknowledge a threefold debt of gratitude which I never can 
repay, but which I can cordially acknowledge. You returned me to 
Parliament, as has been truly said, under circumstances on which I 
need not comment at length ; yet a word or two I may say upon the 
fact that I appear before you as Member for Mid-Lothian, and not as 
Member for Leeds. It was, gentlemen, to me a great personal consola- 
tion and satisfaction that I was never called upon from the course of 
circumstances to exercise the option between Leeds and Mid-Lothian, as 
my seat for both was lost by the acceptance of ojffice before the time 
came for doing so. But at the same time, gentlemen, I may remind 
you of what you know as well as I do — why I am Member for Mid- 
Lothian and not Member for Leeds. The citadel of Toryism in Leeds 
is not so very strong but that a moderate force might hope to carry it. 
But that was not the case with reference to the citadel of Toryism in 
Mid-Lothian. It frowned down upon the county like that old Castle 
of Edinburgh from the rock that overhangs the city ; and the gallant 
men of that county invited me, and I could not for very shame's sake 
refuse their invitation, to try and scale the rock, and make ourselves 
masters of the castle. And while we were fighting in _Mid-Lothian 
there was no loss to anybody in leaving you to deal, with your un- 
assisted force, with the Toryism of Leeds. Gentlemen, you have also 
conferred on me a favour that I should in vain attempt adequately to 
acknowledge, in your acceptance of my son as one of your Members. I 
cannot trust myself, and it would be quite unnecessary if I could, to 
speak in detail upon that subject. I will only express the hope that 
you will be repaid for your generosity by his devotion, and my confi- 
dence that he will never do anything to dishonour either the name he 
bears, or, what is much more" important, the great community_ with 
which you have been pleased to associate his fortunes. I have mentioned, 
gentlemen, two points of the threefold debt ; but there was one event 
that left a deeper impression on my mind than either of those that we 
have mentioned. It was an event much less conspicuous in the public 
eye ; it was the appearance of that deputation who, not in the hour of 
success, not in the hour of hope, but when the skies were darkest and the 
prospects of public fortune lowest, came to see me in London, and, Avithout 
asking from me any reply, without even permitting me by any sort of 
condition to reply, told me of their intention to select me as their candidate 



Fair Trade. 33 

and return me lor Leeds. I tlioiiglit that the undoubted determination, the 
thorough pluck tliat was shewn by those gentlemen of Leeds in forming 
that plan at that time, was an event which should have impressed me 
with the belief, if I wanted fresh evidence of it, how worthy they are to 
belong to the great county with which they are associated, and what 
good representatives they Avere of the best public spirit of England. 
For the spirit which then prevailed was not the spirit which is now in 
the ascendant. There are to be found, gentlemen, in every country the 
elements of a temper which is apt to display itself in assumption and 
arrogance and aggression — in every community there will be such 
elements ; but in this community they never become dangerous unless 
they receive countenance from the leaders of one of the great political 
parties ; and then, of necessity, they become very dangerous. That is a 
temper which, when we see it in other countries, we all condemn. It is 
just as well known in France as it is here. In France it passes, as you 
all know, under the name of Chauvinism. It is as like as two peas to 
that which we call here " Jingoism," and yet, strange to say, that portion 
of Englishmen who are most infected by " Jingoism " are most loud in 
their denunciations of Chauvinism. They say France has been under 
the influence of Chauvinism in the steps she has taken in the province 
of Tunis, and their denunciations are unbounded. I won't now enter 
into that question, but I will say this, that if they are right in what they 
say, they are not the people to reproach France for what she has done, 
for they are the people who have endeavoured —aye, and I am sorry to 
say on some recent occasions with some success — to lead this great nation 
into the exhibition of a similar temper, and to allow it to dominate in 
the direction of its public affairs. Gentlemen, it is as a protest against 
the prevalence of that spirit, as you well know, that your deputation 
came from Leeds ; that you have framed many parts of the addresses 
presented to me ; and that I (who had fondly believed that the hour of 
my retirement had arrived some years before) have again been for the 
time brought into the front rank of political conflict. I therefore 
acknowledge the threefold debt I owe to Leeds for returning me to 
Parliament, for the return of my son, and for the remarkable exhibition 
of determined intention in the hour of need, and when the policy to 
which we are attached was, to all appearance, less likely to prevail than 
it had appeared to me at any former moment. 

And now, gentlemen, I will try to touch two points in particular, if 
you will allow me, of those that have been raised — variously and multi- 
fariously raised — in the addresses that are before me. It is not, gentle- 
men, that you want instruction upon these points ; for in truth, if that 
were all, I do not know why in the world I should come to preach 
Liberal principles in Leeds, which would be an enterprise as bootless as 
" carrying coals to Newcastle." But what we say in Leeds on this 
occasion may possibly be heard in quarters where it is more wanted. 
Let me say something on subjects that have necessarily occupied much 
of my thoughts of late years — the subject of land and the subject of 
trade. 



34: SpeecJies of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 



THE LAND QUESTION. 

The subject of land lias been pressed upon all our minds, first of all 
by the legislation for Ireland, or rather, I will say, first of all by the 
temporary depression of British agriculture ; and, secondly, by the recent 
legislation for Ireland. Of that legislation for Ireland I will only say, 
upon the present occasion, that it was legislation for Ireland, and not for 
England or for Scotland. The circumstances of land in England and 
Scotland demand the close attention of the Government, and we have 
much to do with regard to it ; but they are not the same as the circum- 
stances of Ireland, and that which was most exceptional in the Act relating 
\ to Ireland, justified as it was in our minds and felt by the majority of 
'W Parliament to be justified by the peculiar circumstances of the condition 
of that country, cannot be held to have an equal or parallel application 
to a country whose condition has never been subjected to the action of 
sucli disturbing and distorting and paralysing forces as, unhappily, has 
been the case with respect to the various interests connected witii the 
land in Ireland. But although that is so, and although I at least shall 
never be a party to the introduction of the Irish Land Act into England, 
nor indeed do I believe that that is the desire of any sensible — I beg 
pardon, of any appreciable portion of the people of this country, — yet 
there is much to be done. And there are three points of view in v/hich 
we may look at this question of the land. The first is to deal with it 
financially. And here you will observe, gentlemen, that our friends the 
Tories are very active ; indeed, I must compliment them upon their 
activity in general. People talk of a Parliamentary recess ; the leaders 
of the Tories do not appear to me to have any recess at all. Ever since 
the prorogation they have been at it, and no doubt they intend to 
continue until the next Queen's Speech. There is a passage in the vivid 
account of the French Revolution by Carlyle, where, in one of the pre- 
liminary stages, I think, he says, " Riots were sputtering all over the 
face of France ; " and in the same manner Conservative meetings have 
been sputtering over the face of England. As, unhappily, I do not 
address you at a time when public affairs are free from circumstances of 
anxiety, as there are or may be storms in the air, it is natural enough 
that the storm-birds should go abroad and see what they can make of 
them, and they have paid me a particular compliment, for which I 
cannot be too grateful, for they have stopped me up, before and behind. 
Last night and the night before, and the night before that, I believe, 
and again I am told to-night, and then again next week, there are to be 
Conservative meetings with Conservative leaders, so as effectually to 
neutralise any mischief which may result from this little gathering. I 
feel myself, ladies and gentlemen, to be absolutely mobbed by these 
Conservative meetings. The order in this town is admirable, and I 
have not the least fear of being mobbed, but I feel that I am being 
mobbed by these extraordinary gatherings of last week, this week, next 
week, and all the weeks to come. Well, then, gentlemen, at these 
meetings there is a great deal said on the subject of land, and here it is 
very necessary to warn you, and to warn the country. Let us see how 
the financial part of the question of land is dealt with by the Tory party. 



Fair Trade. 35 



THE MALT TAX.' 

I call you to witness, gentlemen, that for the last half-century down 
to the last year the favourite cry of the Torit^s was the repeal of the 
malt- tax. Yfhen the Governments of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli or 
Lord Beaconsfield were in office, some way or other the malt-tax seemed 
to sit quite easy on the shoulders of the Tory party ; hut whenever there 
was a Liberal Government in power, every opportunity was taken to 
shew that the malt-tax Avas an intolerable burden upon the British 
farmer, and that the thing to set him right and straight was to repeal 
the malt-tax. But the Tories never attempted to deal with the malt- 
tax. Sir Stafford Northcote, as Chancellor of the Exchequer for some 
six years, with the most obedient majority of the House of Commons at 
his back, never dreamt of repealing the malt-tax. But last year, before 
we were six months old as a Government, v/e determined to repeal the 
malt-tax. And why, gentlemen ? Not because we believed in the 
absurd pretensions that had been set up by the old malt-tax repealers, 
but because we knew, and had always admitted, that there were very 
important reasons for thinking that it was unjust. In the first place, 
the malt-tax disturbed us as Free Trailers ; and as Free Traders we 
could not approve of any tax that disturbed the action of all connected 
with farming in the country. It attached to the farming of certain soils 
which produced the finest barley a fictitious value in addition to its 
natural advantages. As Free Traders, Ave are opposed to all legislation 
that interferes with one description of commodity as against another. 
There was another reason why we repealed the malt-tax, and that is that 
you, as Liberals, have always been forward, and I hope always will^b.e 
forward, to get rid of any excise duty. That was an excise duty wLi ;h 
positively had this effect with regard to a vast trade — for the value of 
the beer trade and of the different malt liquors produced in this country 
is such as to make it one of the largest trades in the country — that the 
old malt-tax absolutely prescribed to people out of what materials, and 
what materials alone, they should make their beer. In repealing the 
malt-tax, then, we were glad to give that which we believed to be just. 
and right to the farming interest, and to give to British industry in yet 
another province that absolute freedom which we desired to see it enjoy. 
But what happened ? That the Tories have turned their backs on the 
repeal of the malt-tax, and they now, without the slightest, or even 
decent, regard to their professions of half a century ago, say that it is a 
worthless, insignificant afl'air, and perhaps, on the whole, has in it more 
evil than good. It is difficult to deal with people who proceed in that 
way, and who, when you think j'ou are making a justifiable approxima- 
tion to their views, turn round upf)n you and denounce you in terms of 
violence, or else represent as totally unnecessary that which they have 
formerly held up as a capital article both of public justice and of national 
policy. Oh ! but they have turned to other things. They tell the 
farmers, "We must have you relieved of a great deal of the burden of 
the rates." It is well worth while, gentlemen, for us to dig a little 
below the surface of that profession, and see what it means. 

c 2 



36 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 



GRANTS IN AID. 

In the first place, gentlemen, don't suppose for a moment that in my 
opinion rates ought not to be dealt with. I, being an old man, may not 
have much to say to the matter, but if I were 20 years younger I 
would say there is nothing in regard to which I would more desire a 
large and extended change. I am an enemy of the present system of 
what are called grants in aid. Of course you will understand I am not 
laying down mathematical propositions. I do not speak absolutely, but 
in general I see the greatest mischief in these grants in aid. It seems 
to me the object of the Tories, for the sake of obtaining the votes of the 
farmers, is to extend these grants without limit. In the first place, I am 
against an extension of grants in aid, or of reliefs to the rates in any 
form, without a thorough consideration of the question of local govern- 
ment. For these grants in aid, what do they do 1 In the first place 
they encourage extravagance. In the second place, they promote cen- 
tralisation, and they relegate to the offices in Downing Street matters 
which ought to be disposed of by the local authorities in respective 
districts. In the third place, they sap the very principles of local 
government by depriving you of the means for the exercise of its 
functions. And, gentlemen, I cannot pass by the subject of local 
government without impressing upon you that there is no one among 
you who discharges the oflSce of local citizenship who is more deej)ly 
impressed with its profound importance than I am myself. Local 
government, gentlemen, is the training school for Imperial government. 
Habits formed in connection with local government are the habits which 
enable this nation to find men in abundance, from time to time, 
thoroughly competent to carry on the business and the government of 
the country. And on all these grounds I think that the j)resent system 
of grants in aid is a system that requires to be checked, nay, requires to 
be greatly changed. It is also, in my opinion, a most impolitic system, 
upon this ground : the collection of Imperial taxes is always a matter of 
serious political delicacy and, indeed, difficulty. The collection of taxes 
for local purposes is a thing comparatively easy. Now, gentlemen, 
what I would say is this. In the first place, remember what I am going 
to say now will have reference, not to local taxes in towns, but to local 
taxes in the country. The circumstances are exceedingly different. 
They have increased in towns with a rapidity quite unknown in the 
country. And likewise the question of the ultimate incidence of the 
rate is a question much more open to debate and doubt in the populous 
districts than it is in the rural districts. But, upon my word, I must 
say of rates generally, and especially rates in the country, I think the 
time might come when it might be very proper to make large, direct 
allocations of public taxes to the local communities for them to expend, 
subject to fixed rules, laid dowii by the State, as economically and 
beneficially as they can. Gentlemen, I must endeavour to bring into 
view that which it seems to be the object of Toryism to keep out of 
view, and it is this — that every sixpence which you take off the rates in 
an agricultural district in this country, while it is an immediate relief 
to the tenant^ is an ultimate gift to the landlord \ and, taking that point 



Fair Trade. 37 



of view, the demand that something shall be taken off taxation from the 
general exchequer of the country in order to be applied to the payment 
of rates in rural districts, while it may be very agreeable to the farmer 
for the moment — and I do not at this moment inquire what ought to be 
done for him — is a demand of the landlords of this country that their 
descendants shall, to that extent, be quartered upon the public exchequer. 
Now, gentlemen, that is a very serious matter for consideration. And 
when I say this I speak as one whose fortunes and the fortunes of his 
family are closely connected with the prosperity of agriculture, but who, 
at the same time, will always strive to prevent any bias from taking 
possession of his mind on that ground in the consideration of these great 
subjects. 

THE AGRICULTUEAL HOLDINGS BILL. 

Well, the question of dealing with the landlords and the land 
embraces, as respects landlords, the great subjects of the devolution of 
land, the transfer of land, the registry of land, and the mode of borrow- 
ing upon land. These are subjects of great importance to all persons 
connected with land, on which I hope that the present Government, 
whether while I am in it, or after I cease to belong to it, will deal 
efficiently and fearlessly. There is another part of the question of land 
yet more urgent, and that is that which touches the tenant. The true 
interest of the farmer, the just object of the farmer, is to have his interest 
in the land made secure. I see there are some professions made in these 
Tory meetings that they are quite willing that that should be done. 
Willing that it should be done ! Why, they told us five years ago that 
they had done it. They passed a Bill, which they called the Agricultural 
Holdings Bill, and that was the great legislative achievement of the six 
.or seven years of the late Government. That was the summit of what 
they could do for the farmers, to whom they owed their existence. I 
have heard that constantly quoted. I ordered a good many copies of 
the Bill, and in order to see if they could make anything out of it, I sent 
it among the tenantry. I sent copies — I thought it would be best not 
to scatter them wholesale, and I selected two or three — to the intelligent, 
the most intelligent, men among the farmers ; but I could not get them 
to look at it. They absolutely neither knew nor cared one farthinp- 
about it. That Bill was the most complete abortion that I have ever 
known in the handling of a great legislative subject. And this abortion 
was the only achievement of an Administration that lasted six or seven 
years. However, the question has arisen, and arisen in a very serious 
form, in consequence of the pressure upon the farmer due to a series 
of unfavourable seasons. 1 will not enter into any details as to 
modes of proceeding. As I have said that in my opinion the Irish Land 
Act ought not to become the English or Scotch Land Law, I say as 
emphatically that it is an object of capital and immediate importance 
for the farmer to see that effectual and not abortive measures are taken 
to secure the whole interest of the tenants, not part of that interest, 
but the whole interest— his interest in his improvements, and hie. 
interest, as the law may define it, in his tenure. There is here a point 
of junction between trading and landed interests in relatioi; to the 



38 Sijeeclies, of Right Hon. William EwaH Gladstone, M.P. 

matter we are discussing. The trade of the country has heen severely 
and even lamentably depressed, in certain branches particularly. It has 
been depressed first of all, I believe, in Avhat I shall call this district, 
because, although I don't mean the town of Leeds in particular — perhaps 
in some degree the town of Leeds — I mean very much more the great 
sister town of Bradford —that district which, as far as there has been a 
pressure due to the special action of foreign competition, may be thought, 
and thought justly, to have experienced that pressure. 

THE DErRESSION OP TRADE. 

I won't trouble you in a great assembly of this kind v.dth a number of 
figures, but those figures show the case ver}^ simply. Taking the woollen 
and worsted manufacturers together, and taking our trade with certain 
countries, namely, France, Germany, and Holland, and Belgium, I 
believe it is the case that our imj^ortsof woollen and worsted goods have 
come very close upon our exports. The figures, so far as I can make 
tliem out, are these. We export £8,650,000, and we import £8,509,000. 
That is very nearly a balance. I will not now discuss the question whether 
it is in the power of the capitalists and the industrial interests of this 
country to amend that balance ; my own belief is that it is. I often say 
that the English ])roducer wants a good deal of pressure upon him to 
make him do his best, but that when the pressure is put upon him, he 
will comj)ete successfully with anybody in the world — unless he were 
to make an attempt where the natui'al circumstances are entirely and 
absolutely against him. I won't go into that, but I take this point, 
because it enables me to raise conveniently a question to which I think 
it necessary to allude. The question is not whether the depression of 
the last few years has been severe, for it has been severe. I, as Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer, have had to lament it. It is not true that the 
revenue has yet recovered from the effect of it. The revenue, as on the 
last quarter day, was, I think, in the Press estimated rather more 
favourably than it deserved. It may be said that the revenue is some- 
what recovering from it, but it is very far indeed from complete 
recovery, although I have no doubt this complete recovery will arrive. 
But, gentlemen, what has been the main cause; of this depression of our 
trade ? Now that is a most important question, because systematic 
attem]ots are made to persuade you — and though they won't succeed 
here, they may succeed elsewhere— to persuade you^ — I mean the people 
of England — that the main cause of our depression has been that we 
cannot carry on our trade with foreign countries in consequence of the 
pressure of hostile tariffs, and, as a consequence, that Free Trade is a 
failure. 

Now let us look at the basis of fact which is under this monstrous 
doctrine. I observe that those who write upon these subjects on the 
wrong side, very generally avoid specific facts, and deal with generalities, 
and 1 think that is a proof of a very great deal of sound discretion on 
their part. When they get out of that tangled and cloud region, and 
come to deal with facts, they get into sad scrapes. Here is a case. You 
had not long ago a noble Lord condescending to come into the neigh- 
bourhood of Leeds, and endeavouring to enlighten the people iu this 



Fair Trade, 39 



neighbourhood as to the terrible dangers we are in from foreign com- 
petition. Lord Lascelles quoted a statement made by Mr. James 
Lowther, in Lincolnshire, that a great railway station had recently been 
erected at York. And so far, gentlemen, I congratulate the noble Lord 
and Mr. James Lowther on their accuracy as to that fact. That would 
not have answered the purpose, however, and so they went to produce 
for once a fact instead of generality, and the fact was this, that this great 
station at York was built of Belgian iron. That statement, I believe, 
has been contradicted in the newspapers ; but contradictions never 
obtain a currency so wide as an original statement of that kind. This 
was a very authentic fact, but it had not a shadow of foundation — as you 
know very well. While Lord Lascelles, at Kirkstall, was instructing 
his audience that the York station was built of Belgian iron, if, instead 
of importing information from Lincolnshire, he had come for informa- 
tion to Leeds, everybody would have told him that the iron for that 
station was made by you, sir (Mr. Kitson) ; and that the erection of the 
station was conducted by Mr. Butler, of^ Leeds also. I hope our Tory 
friends will take this statement in the spirit in which it is made. I 
recommend them not to deal with matters of fact in the future, but to 
confine themselves cheerfully to generalities, where nobody can grapple 
with them. 

The question as a matter of fact is, Has the pressure of foreign tariffs — 
which I do not undervalue, as you will see by-and-by — been or not 
been the main cause of the depression of trade f Now, you will agree 
with me in this, that the main cause of the depression of trade has been 
either the unwillingness or inability of foreign countries to buy, or it 
has been the decrease of the purchasing power at home. Let us see 
which of these has been the main factor in that depression, because it is 
upon the assumption that the foreign question is the great cause that is 
founded the recommendation now so confidently made to go back to the 
state of things we parted with some thirty years ago. Now, I v/ant to 
measure — and it is possible to do it without much difiiculty, and with 
sufficient, though not minute, accuracy — I want to measure what has 
been the amount of depression or contraction of our foreign trade, and 
what, on the other hand, has been the decrease of the purchasing power 
at home. I take the year which presented the very highest amount of 
exports — 256 millions of British and Irish goods and produce. I will 
assume — though you all know very well that those 256 millions were 
exported with an inflated state of prices, a state of prices that could not 
possibly be maintained, a state of prices which, as regarded the iron and 
coal trade, was totally unexampled — but assuming that volume of trade 
as the natural state of things, which is an enormous assumption, I will 
show you what is the decrease in the purchasing power, the actual loss 
to the people of this country that has accrued through the depression in 
connection with our foreign trade. If the value of the exports had 
continued in 1878, 1879, and 1880, the three years of great agricultural 
depression, and of depression in trade and commerce — if that high scale 
of exports had continued, we should have exported in those years 768 
millions of goods and produce ; instead of which we have only exported 
607 millions. That was a decrease of 161 millions in three years ; but 



40 Bpeeches of Right Hon. ^William iSwart Gladstone, M.P'. 

of course it was not all loss. What was lost was the profit upon that 
decrease, and I take the profit at the rate at which it is usually assumed 
— namely, 10 per cent., and I shall show you in that way that the 
country was sixteen millions poorer in consequence of the contraction of 
its foreign trade. There should be a further item put down, Avhich 1 
will allow for liberally. I will assume that there was an additional loss 
of eight millions in the profit of the carrying trade of those sixteen 
millions by this country to foreign countries. And if I add the eight 
millions to the sixteen millions, I show that this country is perliaps 
twenty-four millions the j)00i'er. I have endeavoured to make the 
allowances against myself, and I assume — though it is doubtful — that 
the country is twenty-four millions the poorer — a very serious amount — 
in consequence of the contraction of our foreign trade since the time 
when our exports were at the maximum. 

LOSSES BY BAD HARVESTS. 

Now let me turn to the efi'ect of the bad harvests. What have been 
our losses by bad harvests in 1878, 1879, and 1880 ? and, of course, 
when I speak of harvests I speak of the whole agricultural produce of 
the land, including root crops, grass, and everything. Gentlemen, I 
believe it is a moderate estimate over the three kingdoms to place that 
loss at 120 millions sterling. Many place it higher, considerably higher. 
I am convinced, if I were only to take the reductions of rent that have 
occurred, and the allowances upon rents, that it is a moderate statement 
to say that the agricultural products in these three years fell short by 
120 millions sterling in the aggregate of what they would have been if 
the harvests had been good. That is all sheer loss except that there 
was a saving on the getting in of all the goods represented by the 120 
millions. Let us suppose that the expenses of getting in the agricultural 
crop are upon the average one-sixth, taking all descriptions of agricul- 
tural produce together. Well, then, even if the farmer, in losing 
^120,000,000 on his produce, saved ^20,000,000, which he would have 
expended in getting it in, the loss would still be £100,000,000. And, 
gentlemen, what we show therefore, is this, that while it is an extrava- 
gant statement to say that the country was £24,000,000 poorer on 
account of the contraction of its foreign trade, it is not an extravagant 
statement to say that it was £100,000,000 poorer on account of that 
remarkable series of deficient harvests in those years. The principal 
seat of this depression is not to be looked for in the pressure of foreign 
tariffsj though that is very serious. It is to be looked for in the bad 
harvests. We may reasonably hope that these will not continue. The 
present harvest is one of great difficulty to judge of. I have made the 
best inquiries in my power, and I believe it is distinguished almost 
beyond any other harvest we have had by its inequality. The returns 
in certain cases are admirable ; in other cases they are very deficient. 
Some important crops, from the failure of which we have greatly suffered 
of late years, such as potatoes, are — at all events in our neighbourhood, 
and this, of course, is a thing we have nothing but local knowledge to 
go by — abundant and healthy almost beyond precedent. I saw two or 
three nights ago, dug up in a cottage garden, a potato which weighed 



Fair Trade. 41 



lib. 5oz. ; and anyone wlio is accustomed at all to these things will 
know what sort of a potato season — the root also being healthy — it is 
that gives results like these. But that I do not dwell upon. It is a 
safe thing to say that no adverse decree of Providence has gone forth 
against the harvests of this country, and that we shall hope for a recur- 
rence of average fruitfulness in future years which will restore the home 
market, the greatest by far of the markets in which we are interested, to 
a better state. 

*'OUR OLD FRIEND PROTECTION." 

But this depression is made the subject of an attempt to propagate a 
great and most mischievous delusion. An institution has been formed 
with the imposing name of the National Fair Trade League. What, 
gentlemen, is its object, and what is its meaning ? It bears a suspicious 
likeness to our old friend Protection. Protection was dead and buried 
thirty years ago. He has come out of his grave and is walking abroad, 
and his long experience of the atmosphere below ground has not made 
his looks a bit more attractive than they used to be before he was the 
subject of that experience ; and the consequence is that he has found it 
convenient to assume an alias, and if you met him in the street and 
said, " Oh, Mr. Protection, how do you do ? " he would say, " I beg your 
pardon, I know nothing of Mr. Protection ; I am Mr. Fair Trade, and 
have no relationship whatever with Mr. Protection." And speaking 
seriouj'ly, gentlemen, although an article has been written in perfect 
good faith by Mr. Protection himself in the " Nineteenth Century," 
there is a very good antidote to it. The name at the foot of it is that of 
Mr. Ecroyd, the Member for Preston ; but Mr. Ecroyd actually says 
that he writes in the name of Fair Trade. The name of Protection, as 
I have said, is kept back, but they are not satisfied with keeping back 
the name. Mr. Ecroyd, in the simplicity of his heart, writes a serious 
complaint, and ex]3resses a grave apprehension. He says he is very 
much afraid that the Fair Trade movement will be mistaken for Pro- 
tection by those whose object it is to confuse the issue. He wants a 
good lump of duty put upon foreign manufacture ; he wants a duty of 
5s. a quarter upon corn, and all this he says he wants, not at all for 
Protection, but in the name of " Fair Trade " ; only he is afraid that 
some Liberals are actually so perverse that they will endeavour to repre- 
sent that he is agitating for Protection. "When I read this article it 
reminded me of a most amusing passage in an admirable book, which I 
hope will never cease to be a book that will be read in the homes of this 
country. It is " Gulliver's Travels." Everybody has read in it the 
history of men six inches high and of men sixty feet high, and the history 
of creatures more extraordinary still in all their conditions of life, who 
were not men, but one of the most strange tribes ever conceived. In 
closing the book Dean Swift says : — 



"Thus, gentle reader, I have given thee a faithful history of my travels for 
sixteen years and about seven months, wherein I have not been so studious of orna- 
ment as of truth. I could perhaps, like others, have astonished thee with strange, 
improbable tales, but what I rather chose to narrate has been matter of fact in the 
plainest style, because n^y siuiple desire was to iufornj, and not to delight. I 



42 ^peeclies of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

heartily wish that a law were enacted under which every traveller should be com- 
pelled, on coming back to this country, to promise that he would tell what he had 
himself seen, and that he would tell nothing but the truth." 

And just so, Mr. Ecroyd is quite ready to take an oath, tliat Fair 
Trade has nothing at all to do with Protection, and he expects us to 
accept this doctrine just as Dean Swift expected us, or wittily affected 
to expect us, to helieve that his fictions were facts, and that other people's 
facts were fictions. 

FAIR TRADE. 

Now, what is this Fair Trade system ? It proposes that we shall tax 
foreign manufactures in order that they may untax our manufactures. 
That is its first proposal. Well now, gentlemen, it appears to me to be 
a considerable exaggeration of a great Christian precept. There is a 
great Christian precept that if a man strikes you on one cheek you should 
'^ turn to him the other also ; " but the precept with Mr. Ecroyd and 
others is, "if somebody smites you on one cheek you should smite 
yourself on the other also.'' That appears to me to be a needless exag- 
geration. But let that pass, and let us sea whether the thing is prac- 
ticable. We are to smite ourselves on the other ; but we are to do so 
in order to induce somebody else to do something that he ought, but is 
not disposed, to do, and we are to force him to do it by hitting him. I 
think there is a good old English maxim, that if you are to strike you 
ought to strike hard. Can you strike the foreigner hard by retaliatory 
tariffs ? What manufactures do you import from abroad ? In all 45 
millions. What manufactures do you export ? Nearer 220 millions — 
over 200 millions. If you are to make the foreigner feel, you must 
make him feel by striking him in his largest interests ; but the interest 
which he has in sending manufactures to you is one of his small interests 
and not of his large interests, and you are invited to inflict wounds on 
him on a field measured by 45 millions, while he has got exactly the 
same power of inflicting wounds upon you on a field measured by more 
than 200 millions. Tlie case the people feel most is the case of America. 
I can't even now mention the case of America, but the thought will 
cross the mind of the great tragedy which has lately been enacted in 
that country. England lias well acquitted herself of her dut}^, lias Avell 
given vent to her sentiments on the death of President Garfield. We 
have seen him die with unparalleled suffering as a Christian and as a 
hero. That is recorded in the heart of this nation ; it is like a new and 
perpetual pledge of amity and affection between the two countries ; but 
notwithstanding that, and though I believe that there is but one senti- 
ment on that subject, yet people are very sore about the American tariff. 
The Americans hit us very hard with their duties, and there is a great 
reduction no doul)t in our exports to America. But still how do we 
stand 1 America sends to us less than three millions of manufactured 
goods ; we send to America — what between our own manufactured goods 
and the foreign and colonial produce which Ave have got for our manu- 
factured goods, and which is therefore j ust the same — we send to America 
between 30 and 40 millions of manufactured goods. The advice of these 
Fair Traders is that we are to" endeavour, by hitting America through 



Fair Trade. 43 



tlies3 three millions wliicli slie seiid-L? to us, to make her cease from 
hitting lis through the 30 and odd millions we are sending to her. It 
is impossible, gentlemen, to conceive that absurdity can further go. But 
there is more tiian this in the pleadings of many of the advocates of this 
system. It calls itself a Fair Trade League : it is a League for the most 
unfair trade I ever heard of. It has got unfairnsss as a birth-sin 
attached to it. The Fair Traders recommend dilferent things to different 
peo^^le. To manufacturers they say : We recommend a duty upon 
manufactures, we do not recommend a duty upon foreign corn. But 
when they go to the farmer, they say they recommend a duty upon 
foreign corn, because they know very well that the farmer would justly 
object to pay an extra price upon labour saved by contrivances imported 
from America, unless you offered him duty upon corn. And so Mr. 
Ecroyd, or Mr. Protection, argues in his paper that the duty upon foreign 
corn\von't raise the price of corn in England. If it does not raise the 
price of corn in England, how is it to benefit the British farmer ? I 
have got a recommendation for tiie National Fair Trade League. When 
they speak to the producer no farmer is to listen ; and when they speak 
to the farmer no producer is to know ; and upon these terms it appears 
to me that the National Fair Trade League may perhaps contrive for a 
time, and until it is found out, to drive a tolerable business. But it is 
not easy to fulfil this condition in this country ; for, unfortunately, there 
are people who will tell producers what the Fair Trade League is saying 
to the farmer, and will tell the farmer what it is saying to the producer. 

"a very serious question indeed." 
I have been detaining you upon what, on the field of pure argument, 
J consider is hollow delusion, which will not bear investigation for one 
moment. But there is a great deal more than pure argument in the 
matter. What I want to know is this : whether Fair Trade, or Protec- 
tion is again to become a subject of national conflict between the parties 
of this country ; and that is a very serious question indeed. For 
remember, gentlemen, what has formerly taken place. A quarter of a 
century of tlie legislative life of this country was spent without reserve 
on the solution of this great economical problem. From 1837 or 1838, 
when the first great battle on the Corn Law took place in the House of 
Commons and when the Anti-Corn Law League was founded, down to 
1861, which was signalised by what I well know to have been a most 
difficult operation— the repeal of the paper duty — these five-and- twenty 
years were one succession of conflicts, which had for their vvdiole aim the 
solution of this great problem. It was nearly a generation of the life 
of the nation we gave to it — almost everything else was cast aside. 
Eeview the legislation of those years, and you will find little except this 
one memorable, conspicuous, I would almost say incomparable, triumph. 
A triumph more beneficent— more beneficent either to the material or 
moral interests of man — I believe never was attained by public virtue 
and by public intelligence. But now we are told that Free Trade is an 
admitted failure, and I want to laiow, gentlemen, what the Tory party 
are going to do in this matter. I mean, as far as it depends upon me, to 
drive home the question. The leader of the Tory party in the House 



44 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

of Commons has, as 1 have said, been makhig frequent speeches in. the 
country. In one of these speeches he held the precise language of the 
Fair Trade League. He said : " I am a Free Trader, but then I am for 
universal Free Trade." Exactly the language of the Fair Trade League. 
He went on to anotlier place, and spoke a column of a newspaper on the 
subject, but I defy anyone to make out its meaning. Gentlemen, this 
is a very serious affair. One of his followers, one of his Privy Coun- 
cillors, one of his colleagues, has w^on a seat in Linconlshire by telling 
the farmers of Lincolnshire that he is for a 5.s. duty on corn. I hold 
the words of the speech in my hand, and Mr. Lowther's election, you 
know, is held out as one of the conspicuous proofs that the people of 
England have changed their mind. Mr. Lowther has announced a 5s. 
duty on corn. Sir Stafford Northcote is speaking all over the land, and 
cannot tell us whether he is for a bs. duty on corn or not. I say we 
have a right to know ; and it is necessary for his character and necessary 
for the chara-cter of his party that "sve should know ; and I will tell you 
why. Because, in my opinion, it is a painful and humiliating process 
that we should have to entertain this question at all. It is quite true 
that several foreign countries within the last few years have been 
aggravating their tariffs. Shall I tell you why ? Because they have 
national Fair Trade Leagues among them. They have been doing the 
very thing which a lot of people among you here desire w^e should do ; 
and they, not having had the same amount of economical education we 
have had, and not having gone through these tremendous conflicts on 
this very question wdiich we have had— conflicts of a quarter of a century 
ago — they have been more acted upon than I hope you will be ; and I 
hope also that this is merely an epidemic mania, and that it will die 
away. 

A 5s. DUTY ON CORN. 

At any rate, let us consider what has happened. After our experience 
in the past it is humiliating, as I have said, that we should have to 
re-open this question. But how was this question treated by the Tory 
party before ? They turned Sir Robert Peel out of office and smashed 
his party in 1846. They then said that Protection was necessary to save 
the country. They fought the general election of 1847 entirely upon 
that principle. They reconstructed their party upon tliat principle, and 
shut out of it everybody except Protectionists. They found it an excel- 
lent game, for it carried for them nearly all the counties of England. 
They kept it up sedulously as long as they were in Opposition. They 
came into oflice in 1852, and, gentlemen, what happened then ? They 
then knew they had not a chance if they maintained the doctrine 
of Protection. For six years they had ruthlessly befooled the farmers 
of England ; and were steeped in pledges over head and ears to 
restore the Corn Law. But when they came into office in 1852, 
and found that to be impossible, and when they were compelled, 
as they were in a minority, to dissolve Parliament, they sent a 
set of candidates down to the towns who w^ere to be Derbyite Free 
Traders, and a set of candidates down to the counties who were to 
be Derbyite Protectionists. And, gentlemen, that is the experiment 



Fair Trade. 45 

"wliich apparently is about to be tried again. Mr. Lowther lias to go 
to North Lincolnshire and promise a 5s. duty on corn to the farmers, 
and -win the seat for the county, and the Tory Press are glorifying 
themselves upon the change in the general opinion. But when they 
send their candidates to the towns, then they -will be Free Trade candi- 
dates. They will look this way and that ; they will say aye or no ; 
they will say, black, blue or white. It is a great misfortune to a party 
that contains many honourable and excellent men that they had to go 
once through a process such as I have described. I do not think that has 
ever been the melancholy history of your party ; but that the Tory 
party should go through that process twice, that it should again delude 
the country by raising the absurd phantom of prosperity to be attained 
through the adoption of a system which we know to be the sure means 
of impoverishment, and that it should at the same time seek, when it is 
convenient, to shirk the question by using vague and general language, 
and declining to give an intelligible opinion, that indeed would be 
intolerable. 

Well, gentlemen, I think I am entitled to say that we should know 
what it is that the Tories mean to do upon this subject of Fair Trade. 
I read this last speech of Sir Stafford Northcote. 1 really am obliged 
to say that I may be confusing the one with the other — but in the one 
before Beverley, at Hull, I think, he dwelt at great length upon this 
subject. In that speech he said he did not approve of some of the 
remedies that had been propounded. Which could he not approve of ? 
Did he or did he not approve of the remedy by which Mr. Lowther 
carried Lincolnshire ? If he did, we know where we are. That which 
carried Lincolnshire will not carry England or Scotland. But if he 
does not approve of it, then I say, after what was done from 1846 to 
1852 by the Tory party, it is time that they should hold intelligible 
language on this subject. I rejoice to think that as Sir Stafford North- 
cote has got more speeches to make, he has got the opportunity to tell, 
reluctantly it may be, whether he is or is not in favour of protective 
duties for manufactures, and of a 5s. duty on corn. 

I think there is one evil we are all agreed about, and an immense 
evil it is — and that is, as we think, the besotted folly — perhaps that is 
not a respectful phrase to use about the proceedings of one's opponents ; 
but really, in our judgment, using the word in its abstract sense, 
±hat is what we think of the system of laying protective duties on manu- 
lactures, whether they are ours or those of anybody else. Sir Stafford 
Northcote on the one side, and we on the other, have a common purpose 
in view. In his own convictions he is as instructed and as intelligent a 
Free Trader as you will find anywhere in the room or out of it. He 
understands the subject thoroughly, and there is his responsibility. Few 
of the men behind him understand it. And I say without hesitation 
that it depends on him, and depends on him perhaps alone, to determine 
whether this great question — solved after a quarter of a century of 
struggle — is again to become a national controversy or not. But now 
let us see. He holds unintelligible language ; he palters with the ques- 
tion. Is that the way to get foreign Governments to undo the mischief 
they have done ? We agree that it is a mischief. We want them to 



43 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.F, 

untax our goods. There are two specifics. One specific is to slio\y 
your consistency and the sincerity of your conYictions by adhering to 
the system which has enormously increased the wealth and trade of the 
country, and has hardly added less to its power in other respects — to 
the solidity of its institutions and its moral advancement. Hold 
steadily by it, and if you believe, if as from experience you know, it is 
the truth, rely upon it truth will in time make its way. That is one 
specific. Another specific is that of Fair Trade — to tax foreign manu- 
factures and to lay a 5s. duty on corn. It is a bad and delusive one. 
But bad as it is, and delusive as it is, it is better than paltering with 
the question ; it is better than standing first on your right leg, and next 
on your left, knowing not which leg you are standing on. It is better 
than winking with one eye at the towns and with the other eye at the 
counties, and contriving that they shall understand you in diff"erent 
senses. Whatever is to be done, that at least is not the way in which 
we can get foreign countries to nntax our manufactures. It may be, I 
won't say it is, impossible, for nothing is impossible ; but let us grant, 
for argument's sake, to the Fair Trader that it would compel them. I 
don't believe it would, though. Well, we do not think that we should 
compel them, but that in the course of time we shall induce them. If 
we could do it quicker we would most w^illingly expedite it. But if 
there is one way surer than another to keep them in the path of mischief 
it is to exhibit to them a course of feeble clouble-mindedness, that does 
not know its own intention, that can find no words to speak an intelli- 
gible opinion upon matters which involve most vital interests to the 
country and the wdiole condition of the people. 

'1 Gentlemen, I have done ; I will not detain you longer. I have 
detained you very long indeed. I may say more, joerhaps, upon the 
drier parts of the question in a smaller audience to-morrow. I have 
assumed, as I hope, that in this hall we are all convinced that Free 
Trade is not only not a failure, but that it has been successful beyond 
our expectation. I will endeavour to give some proof of that by-and- 
by. What I now say is this — that to talk of this question as a 
question that can be disposed of by merely taxing foreign manufac- 
tures is a thing, in my opinion, perfectly ludicrous ; but at any rate 
it is a subject upon which people ought to have an opinion. We 
have an opinion uj)on all questions vitally touching us personally or 
our national existence. This is a matter that vitally touches national 
existence, and British citizens, accustomed to an open and free political 
atmosphere, should know^ their own minds about it, and those who 
lead British citizens should, above all others, know their minds about 
it. I have endeavoured to tell you, I ho^^e pretty intelligibly, my 
mind about it. I will be no party to unsettling, at its top or at its 
bottom, one single stone of that noble structure which was reared l>y 
the combined ettbrts of many able men, most of all, perhaps, by those 
of ]\Ir. Cobden and Mr. Bright ; for which many of us have laboured, 
for which many of us have suffered, by which the land has prospered, 
and to which the people of this country have given their solemn and 
final adhesion. 



State of Ireland. 47 



THE STATE OF IRELAND. 

{AT LEEDS, OCTOBER 7, '1831.) 

I FEEL as you have felt, Sir, tlie difficulty of addressing the vast 
assembly gathered witliiu these walls. I know nut whether increasing 
years may have diminished my power of carrying the utterances of my 
mouth and of my heart to the hearts of my fellow-countrymen ; hut I 
shall indeed grieve if on this occasion^ among all which I have ever had 
to meet, I should fail in enabling you to listen to and to catch the words 
which I shall address to you. My first words must be those of cordial 
and respectful gratitude to the chairman, who has been chosen by your 
favour to the headship of your great party, and Avho has invited me and 
has brought me amongst you ; and who, while apologising for defective 
description of my political life, in his warm and genuine attachment 
has gone far beyond any claims that I could, on the ground of justice, 
have the right to profit by such a description. Gentlemen, allow me to 
say that in one respect I fear — and that respect purely personal — my 
visit to Leeds has been a failure. I came here for the purpose of paying 
an old debt, and such is the reception that you have given me in your 
streets, in the Town Hall to-day, and now within these walls, that I 
painfully feel, instead of getting rid of my old debt I have only suc- 
ceeded in contracting a new one. I am afraid, gentlemen, that I have 
no other resource than one which I trust will never be required to be 
made available for any of you, and that is making a piteous appeal to 
the indulgence of my creditors. 

Gentlemen, among the pleasurable embarrassments of this visit has 
been the abundance with which the various associations and bodies that 
I have had to meet have made known to me their views on the subjects 
of interest that now attract the attention of the country — pleasurable as 
a mark of their confidence, very mixed as regards the state of many of 
those matters in which you naturally feel so deep an interest. There 
was one of those subjects largely mentioned to-day; and now again 
briefly alluded to in the address of jonv chairman, and I think 1 shall 
best discharge my duty to-night by addressing to you my OAvn most 
earnest reflections — I mean the subject described by him in the emphatic 
phrase of " Justice to Ireland " — a great and sacred duty, and one that 
can never be performed, never justly pursued, without equal justice to 
England and Scotland. This morning, ladms and gentlemen, I addressed 
to you in another place a speech turning largely upon questions con- 
nected with the politics of our rival parties. This evening I must ask 
your attention with me to great, even solemn, considerations more con- 
nected with matters Avhich are in the highest sense national. The 
question of the state of Ireland is not, and should not be, a party 
question. I am afraid that for one moment I must refer to a point of 
party policy and discipline — it shall be for a moment only. 

You are aware that the party opposite to ours has glorified itself within 



48 Sjoeeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

the last few weeks on its victory in the county of Durham. Let it enjoy 
all the satisfaction which calm reflection will ]3ermit to patriotic citizens 
in respect to the victory so gained ; but, for my part, I desire no such 
victories. And I trust that never will it happen that a member of the 
Liberal party, with such a state of things in Ireland, shall go to his 
constituents, and meeting the wishes of a few Irish voters who may turn 
the scale, shall solemnly promise to take out of the hands of the execu- 
tive Government their chief responsibility, by binding himself, irrespec- 
tive of all considerations, to vote for the unconditional release of every 
man whom the responsible Ministers of the Crown, acting on the autho- 
rity that Parliament has given them, deem it necessary for the peace of 
the country and for public order to confine. Not another word, Sir, 
will it be necessary for me to say which has relation to our party divi- 
sions ; but I could not pass by the subject to which 1 have just made a 
brief and a painful reference. 

"one of the brightest ornaments op the liberal party." 

I have been challenged by the leader of the Conservative party to 
speak openly and explicitly on the subject of Ireland, and I will meet 
the challenge. Sir Staftbrd Northcote had indeed been anticipated by 
a person acting with a different view, by one whom I am glad to call, 
from his mature convictions, one of the brightest ornaments of the 
Liberal party. I mean Lord Derby. Lord Derby, in a recent essay on 
the Land Act lately passed, has declared, and in my opinion, has justly 
declared, that the passing of the Land Act imposes upon the Govern- 
ment new and special obligations with reference to the enforcement of 
the law and the maintenance of those rights of property and of the 
public peace which are inseparable from ttie first idea of freedom, and 
without which no nation is either worthy to possess freedom or capable 
of enjoying its blessings. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Ireland is in a 
great crisis. A few weeks hang over her which, in ancient times, would 
have been called fateful weeks. The Land Act, which has hitherto 
been mere writing upon paper, is about to become a living reality ; and 
upon the reception and working of the Land Act may depend for gene- 
rations, perhaps for centuries, the condition of Ireland, its happiness 
and prosperity, or its loss of all rational hopes of progress. I know not 
what the issue of that crisis is to be, but interested as you are in Irish 
affairs, and inseparably associated as are these three countries, I will 
venture to lay before you such considerations as, I think, fairly describe 
the character of the Irish crisis. 

improvement in IRELAND. 

Gentlemen, you have been, your party has been, for several genera- 
tions of men, distinguished for its anxiety to promote the redress of 
Irish grievances, and you know that you are constantly reproached with 
what is called the failure of your efforts. And far be it from me to say 
that their success has been complete. But this I will say, that in my 
mind the man is a coward who despairs of the fate of Ireland. Amongst 
the scenes that are now, unhappily, being enacted there by certain 
persons, we may lose sight of the great and uncj^uestionable progress 



State of Ireland. 49 



that has been achieved by that country. It has achieved material pro- 
gress in a degree most remarkable for a coimtry with little variety of 
pursuit. I do not believe that there is a labouring population in all 
Europe — although the condition of the Irish labourer still leaves much 
to desire — which, in the course of the last twenty years, has made a 
progress equal to that of the labouring population of Ireland. Let me 
look at the farming class, which, as you know, may be said almost to 
constitute the body of the nation, understood as the term is understood 
in Ireland. Let me look at the indication of their surplus wealth. 
Forty years ago the deposits in the Irish banks, which are the indica- 
tion of the amount of their free savings, were about five millions. Some 
fifteen years later than that I think they had risen to some eleven or 
twelve millions. There are now of deposits in the Irish banks, which 
represent almost wholly the honest earnings and savings of Irish farmers, 
a sum of nearly thirty millions of money. Of course, I don't mean to 
say that the whole of these are agricultural savings, but an enormous 
proportion is of agricultural savings, and at any rate you cannot mistake 
the meaning and the force of the comparison between the thirty millions 
in round numbers of the present day and the five millions which were 
in the Irish banks forty years ago. If I am to speak of moral progress 
in Ireland, I say that it has been remarkable, and it is associated with 
legal progress in regard to every class of legal offences but one. There 
is still one painful and grievous exception — the exception of agrarian 
offences. But, gentlemen, you will freely rejoice when I record this 
fact, that whereas forty and fifty years ago — fifty years ago, I will say — 
the whole of the community was a community adverse to the execu- 
tion of law, and while I think there were then some 14,000 offenders 
annually committed, the law is now, except as to agrarian offences, as 
well executed in Ireland as it is in England, and the numbers recorded 
in our statistical comparisons of criminal offenders have fallen from 
14,000 to 3,000. Gentlemen, these are indications of real progress about 
which there can be no mistake. They are encouragements to us to 
persevere, to fall back upon that stock of resolution and of patience by 
which it is that a nation grows great, and when it has grown great, 
keeps its greatness. We will not be daunted or baffled by difficulties ; 
we will spend every effort and every resource, against whatever oppo- 
sition, in the accomplishment of a great and noble work. 

OPERATION OF THE LAND ACT. 

Now, gentlemen, with respect to the Land Act, there is a power 
brought into operation which I will presently endeavour to describe 
more particularly, and which I do not hesitate to say is a formidable 
power. Not only the energies of this Government but the energies of 
this nation will be taxed, and the energy of everything in Ireland that 
partakes of loyalty and sound principle will be taxed, to overcome that 
power, and to secure for the people of Ireland that justice in regard to 
the use of their land which jDretended friends are endeavouring to keep 
away from them. Now we have many signs of encouragement in this 
matter. An election a few weeks ago took place in the county of 
Tyrone. There was ^ Tory candidate op. the ground, and a manifesto,— 



50 Sjyeeches of Eight Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

couched like the manifesto in Durham, from the same quarter, in terms, 
I was going to say, of the most violent abuse, hut at least the most 
unsparing abuse of the present Government, — was issued, advising the 
electors to take care that whatever happened a Liberal should not be 
returned. The great leader of the anti-British party — the anti-loyal 
party — failed in the purpose of that manifesto, and a Liberal was 
returned for the county of Tyrone. The Roman Catholic Bishops in 
Ireland, as you know, owing in a great degree to the unfortunate cir- 
cumstances of the country, have been for many generations the habitual 
and the trusted advisers of the people. They have met in solemn synod, 
and they earnestly urged upon the people willingly and freely to accept 
and to make full trial of the Land Act. In some cases many persons 
belonging to what is termed the Land League have held the very same 
language, and for that reason it is that I do not like to speak to you, and, 
shall not sjDeak to you, of the Land League as embodying a principle 
hostile to order and to law in Ireland, because dangerous as that associa- 
tion has proved itself to be, yet I am convinced that it has many mem- 
bers, and perhaps many local branches, Avho have only had in view the 
attainment of lawful and reasonable objects ; and whose exertions, and 
the credit of whose names and characters, others are endeavouring to 
pervert for purposes neither lawful nor reasonable. The Land League 
in the county of Clare the other day met and declared that the Land 
Act ought to be freely and gladly accepted — accepted, of course, for the 
purpose of making a full, impartial trial of the operation of its provi- 
sions. I must quote to you a passage from a gentleman well-known in 
this country some 40 years ago as one of the extremest. of Irish 
patriots — Sir Charles Gavan Duffy — who has since then run through 
an honourable and lengthened j^olitical career in one of our great Aus- 
tralian colonies. He has come back to this country — he has come back 
full of the same intensely national spirit as that with which he went 
away. He is not an altered man. And what does he say ? He has 
published a pamphlet, from which I shall venture to extract the follow- 
ing passage. Having described the Land Act, he says : — 

" Now, my friends, is not this a measxu-e to be received and gratefullj^ to be 
utilised to its utmost possibility of good ? To me nothing is clearer than that all 
the productive energy and the generous enthusiasm of our people ought to be im- 
mediately directed to this task ; that Ave ought to seize all the points of vantage in 
that Bill. If I were a bishop, I would write a pastoral : if I were a priest, I would 
preach, a discourse ; if I Avere a journalist, I Avould ^make myself heard from the 
rostrum of that profession ; if I could do no better, I would beat a drum, in order 
to fix the attention of the Irish people on the splendid opportunity they possess to 
become prosperous and poAverful." 

That, gentlemen, is the impartial judgment pronounced upon the 
Land Act by Irish patriotism of the old school — Irish patriotism, for I 
am by no means disposed to pledge myself to all the opinions of Sir 
Charles respecting Ireland, For I believe almost none of us would 
approve, upon certain points, of that patriotism ; but even the narroM'er 
and more exclusive it is, the more weight has the conclusion to which 
he has now arrived, and the more solemn the appeal he has made to his 
country. I will trouble you, gentlemen, with yet one other citation. 



State of h -eland., 5 1 

You know that the great evil of Irish agricultural life was practical 
insecurity of tenure and want of confidence, amounting, in a very great 
degree, to the efi'ectnal discouragement of industry ; and what was 
wanted was the removal of this insecurity of tenure, and the substitu- 
tion for it of something that would restore the confidence of the Irish 
people in a reasonable certainty of the possession of their holdings. 
Well, gentlemen, we have never professed to give, and have not sought 
to give, effect to any extreme doctrine upon this subject. But we have 
declared that there ought to be given, and have striven to give, to the 
Irish agriculturist, the Irish farmer and the cottage tenant, that kind of 
reasonable security. It is admitted tliat it has been given by those who 
know the Land Act. All those in Ireland who write upon the Land Act 
treat it as an Act which gives a reasonable security to the Irish tenant. 

I have quoted Sir Cluxrles Duffy. I will now quote a later form of 
trusted Irish patriotism. I will cite a man who, until his death, not 
more than some three or four years ago, was the leader of the Irish party 
in Parliament. I mean Mr. Isaac Butt. What, says Mr. Isaac Butt, 
ought to be and would be the state of Ireland if we would remove the 
great and growing evil which had even then been greatly diminished, 
and which has now, as is well-known, been entirely removed ] Wliat 
was the description he gave of the state of things that would and ought 
to prevail in Ireland v/hen that aim had been attained ? Mr. Butt, in 
1866— that was before the Land Act of 1870 — Mr. Butt, speaking of 
a measure that would give effectual security of tenure to the Irish tenant, 
said : — 

" Such a measure would obliterate the traces of the ascendancy of conquest ;_ it 
would teach the population of Ireland to regard the institutions connected ^vith 
landed property with a friendly instead of a hostile feehng. It would conciliate 
them to the law, which they now regard as their enemy, because they know it chiefly 
as enforcing landlords' rights. Take the great body of the people into partnership 
with proprietary privileges, and you do more to attach them to the law or the 
constitution than you could etlbct by all the political or religious concessions you 
could make. Other questions engage their feelings or theh passions ; the laud 
question touches their very existence and their life." 

MR. JOHN DILLON. 

Well, ladies and gentlemen, if this be so, you may suppose that we 
ought to have at least quiet times in Ireland. And now let me do 
justice to a gentleman whose name is in Ireland respected amongst those 
who differ most widely from him, and who was lately, under the exer- 
cise of the discretion of the Government, conhned in prison — Mr. 
DiUon, the Member for Tipperary. Mr. Dillon is a man of the most 
extreme opinions upon every question connected with the nationality of 
Ireland. I am not going to recommend the adoption of his opinions, or 
to profess any share^of sympathy with them ; but I am going to point 
out to you, first of all, that he is a man whom every one acknowledges 
to be one of most single-minded attachment, devoted attachment, to his 
country, and to be of a perfect, unswerving integrity. Now, gentlemen, 
suppose you were like Mr. Dillon, that you believed Ireland was entitled 
to a complete independent national existence — which, I think, is what he 
believes— and supposing, while you were prosecuting that end, you 



52 Speeches of Hight Son. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

found a measure passed by what they call, some of them, an alien 
Parliament, granting, with a liberality unknown in the history of landed 
legislation, privilege and security to the cultivator of the soil, what 
would you do 1 Would you, in consequence of your ulterior views, 
reject that boon ? Woulcl you keep men in want who might be in 
abundance ? Would you keep men in insecurity who might enjoy a 
stable confidence ? Would you keep men in a condition of uncertainty 
as to the future provision for their families, when they might have these 
means at their command, on account of your ulterior views ? No ; you 
would not. You would say you were not justified in intercepting the 
beneficial action of a measure like the Land Act. And that is what'Mr. 
Dillon — alone, I am sorry to say, among his friends — has done. He has 
withdrawn himself from the theatre of action in Ireland. He will not 
give up his extreme national views, but neither will he take upon him- 
self the fearful responsibility of attempting to plunge that country into 
permanent disorder and chaos by intercepting the operation of the Land 
Act. I claim Mr. Dillon as an opponent, but as an opponent whom I 
am glad to honour. 

THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC PLUNDER. 

Now, gentlemen, I have the painful duty of dealing with very 
different conduct, For nearly the first time in the history of Christen- 
dom, a body — a small body — of men have arisen who are not ashamed 
to preach in Ireland the doctrines of public plunder. I make that 
charge advisedly in the situation which I hold, and I shall ask you to 
judge with me whether it is not wrung from me by demonstrative 
evidence and by the hard necessity of the case. Gentlemen, half a 
century ago the people of Ireland gave their confidence to Mr. O'Connell, 
a man of remarkable powers and of opinions not always acceptable to 
the people of this country. But he was a man with resjDect to whom it 
must be said that he had these five characteristics : he always declared 
his loyalty to the Crown ; he always declared his desire for friendly 
relations with Great Britain ; he always declared his respect for pro- 
perty — and he never, so far as I know, by word or act went in contra- 
vention of it ; he declared his respect for law and human life, and said 
that no political change — which was a strong thing to say — should be 
prosecuted at the hazard of its being bought by the shedding of a drop 
of human blood ; and, finally, O'Connell always availed himself of and 
promoted every measure — whether it were small or great, and however 
far it might fall short of his views — which tended to promote the happiness 
of the people of Ireland. That, gentlemen, was the political education 
of the people of Ireland half a century ago. I must now describe to you, 
briefly, upon these five points, the political education which they are 
now receiving. And, gentlemen, the consideration which oppresses me 
and almost weighs me to the ground at this moment is this, that within 
a few short weeks — certainly within a few short months — it may have 
to be decided which of these two forms of political education the people 
of Ireland will prefer. I take as a representative of the opinions I 
denounce the name of a gentleman of considerable ability — Mr. Parnell, 
the member for Cork— a gentleman, I will admit, of considerable ability, 



State of Ireland. 53 



but whose doctrines are not sucli as really need any considerable ability 
to recommend tliem. If you go forth upon a mission to demoralise a 
people by teaching them to make the property of their neighbours the 
objects of their covetous desire, it does not require superhuman gifts to 
find a certain number of followers and adherents for a doctrine such 
as that. 

Do not let it be supposed, gentlemen, that I am going to describe 
what is sometimes called the Irish party and sometimes called the Home 
Rule party, or to charge upon that party the doctrines of which I now 
spealv The majority of Irish members are nominally Home Eulers ; 
but of those nominal Home Eulers no inconsiderable portion — such,_for 
instance, as my respected friend, Mr. Shaw — are men of political 
association with whom no one of us Liberals ought for a moment to be 
ashamed. Even of those wdio won't recognise Mr. Shaw there are many 
who reject in their inmost souls these doctrines, who have not either tlie 
power, or perhaps the courage, to repel as completely as they ought to 
repel the men who teach what I am going to describe, but who un- 
doubtedly follow with a slow and reluctant pace, and take every oppor- 
tunity they can to show that reluctance. A handful of men, and only a 
handful, in Parliament follow Mr. Parnell. I will not call them a 
party, for they are not entitled to be called a party ; but they are 
gentlemen who make themselves effectively responsible for the new- 
gospel of Irish patriotism. And even with respect to them, so hard it is 
to understand how far it may be with them a matter of compulsion and 
how far a matter of will, that I will not attempt to identify them. I 
will frankly take the case of Mr. Parnell, as exhibiting to you what 
I mean wdien I say that the state of things in Ireland is coming to be 
a question between law on the one hand and sheer lawlessness on the 
other. 

THE FIVE POINTS OF IRISH PATRIOTISM. 

And now, gentlemen, I shall go very briefly — and the importance of 
the subject, I am sure, will justify me in your eyes if I detain you 
longer — I shall go very briefly over the five points of Irish patriotism 
as it was known in the time of O'Connell, and as it is now being made 
known in a very different shape. Mr. O'Connell professed his uncon- 
ditional and unswerving loyalty to the Crown of England. Mr. Parnell 
says if the Crown of England is to be the link between the two coun- 
tries, it must be the only link ; but whether it is to be the link at all — 
I am not now quoting his words — is a matter on which I believe he has 
given no opinion whatever. O'Connell desired friendly relations wdtli 
the people of this country — cordial and hearty friendship. What does 
Mr. Parnell desire ? He says the Irish people must make manufactures 
of their own, in order that they may buy nothing in England. I do 
not believe him to be a profound political economist, but I would com- 
mend to his mind the consideration that it may be rather difhcult for 
the Irish people to provide themselves, by the labour of their own hands, 
with everything that they now derive from England. He is prepared 
for that alternative, and he says, " If you cannot make the manufactured 
articles, you must buy them from foreign countries ; but whatever you 



54 Speeclies of Right Hon. William Evxirt Gladdone, M.P. 

do, you must not buy tlieui from EiigLmd." I say, gentlemen, that I 
think yoLi will begin to perceive that in the strong language I have used 
to describe the condition of affairs in Ireland, I am not wholly without 
justification. Friendship with England was the motto of O'Connell, 
wdio, on every occasion, declared his respect for property — and, as far as 
I know, I believe he consistently maintained it ; but what says Mr. 
Parnell upon that subject ? Twelve months ago he told the people of 
Ireland that they ought to pay, not the rents they had covenanted to 
pay, but the estimate of Gritliih's valuation, ^vhich is much below the 
real value, and in by far the greater number of cases is fiamed for a 
different purpose. In fact, the advice amounted to this — that the 
tenantry were to substitute an arbitrary payment for the standard 
which had been agreed upon. But Mr. Parnell has not stopped there. 
Now that the Land Act has passed, and now that he is afraid lest 
the people of England by their long-continued eti'orts should w'in the 
lieart of the whole Irish nation, jNIr. Parnell has a new and an en- 
larged gospel of plunder to proclaim. He says now that, whereas tlie 
rental of Ireland is 17 millions of money, the landlord is entitled to 
nothing but the original value of the land before the spade was put 
into it ; and that the rental he may justly claim is not 17 millions, 
but possibly about three millions of money. And I ask you, gentle- 
men, as honest men, not as politicians, not as Liberals, not in any 
other capacity — I ask you wheiher it is jjossible to describe proceedings 
of that kind in ?cn.j words more just or accurate than as the promulga- 
tion of the gospel of sheer plunder. 

The next of the five points was respect for law and human life. On 
that I think O'Connell was consistent ; and I believe he was unimpeach- 
able. Mr. Parnell is somewhat copious in his references to America. 
He seems to set up America as the true and only friend of Ireland ; 
but in all his references to America he has never found time to utter 
one word of disapproval or misgiving about what is known as the 
assassination literature of that country. Not American literature. No ; 
there is not an A.merican who does not scorn it and spurn it and loathe 
it as you do. But there are, it is sad to say, a knot of Irishmen who 
arc not ashamed to point out, in the press which they maintain, how 
the ships in Her Majesty's navy ought to be blown into the air — to 
destroy the power of England by secret treachery, and how gentlemen 
that they are pleased to select ought to be made the object of the knife 
of the assassin, and deprived of life because they don't conform to the 
new" Irish gospel. You know there have been some attempts of this 
kind made in this country. You may have heard of an explosion of 
dynamite in Salford not very long ago. There was a death of one 
person in consequence of that explosion. The death of another was 
expected, but I believe was averted ; and Mr. Parnell said that that 
occurrence in Salford appeared to him to bear the character of a prac- 
tical joke. 

O'cONNELL AND PARNELL CONTRASTED. 

Now, gentlemen, I go along point by point, and I come finally to this, 
that whenever a measure was passed with a good intent for Ireland, 



State of Ireland. 65 



O'Connell accepted that measure, however far short it might fall of 
what he thought she Avas entitled to claim. Has the present candidate 
for the leadership — for I will not call him leader of the people of 
Ireland ; that is just the qnestion that has got to be decided, and is not 
decided yet — has the candidate for the leadership of the people acted 
upon that principle 1 How lias he met ns during the last Session ? 
With every effort that he could to disparage, to discredit, and, if ho 
could, to destroy the Land Bill. He did not dare to go beyond a certain 
point. He did not dare to vote against the Bill like a man, because he 
knew that if he did his own Land Leaguers in Irelar^d would rise in a 
body against him. But when the Tories, unfortunately as I think, 
determined to oppose the Bill on the second reading, and when the life 
of the Bill was at stake, Mr. Parnell, with thirty of his friends, withdrew 
from the House, and did the utmost that their courage permitted to 
destroy the w^ork which we had begun, and to defeat us in our arduous 
labours. On every occasion the same policy was pursued ; and now 
what does Mr. Parnell do ? The people of Ireland, gentlemen, as we 
believe — and this is just tiie matter that the next few weeks or months 
will have to determine— desire, in conformity with the advice of their 
old patriots, of their Bishops, of tlieir trusted friends, to make a full 
trial of the Land Act ; and if they do make a full trial of that Act, you 
may rely upon it — it is as certain as human contingencies can be — it 
will give peace to the country. Peace to the country is exactly the 
thing which is not the object of ]\Ir. Parnell and his disciples ; and 
therefore, in the prosecution of their policy, the thing which is more 
than all necessary for them to do is to intercept the action of the Land 
Act. How do they set about it I ~Mv. Parnell, with his myrmidons 
around him in his Land League, goes to Dublin, instructs the people of 
Ireland that they are not to go into the court v/hich the Parliament of 
the country has established in order to do them justice— they are not to 
go into the court until he gives them leave. He says that they are not 
to go there until he has framed certain test cases, and until he and his 
brethren of the Land League have taken these test cases into court. 

What does he mean by these test cases 1 I will tell you, gentlemen, 
what he means. It is perfectly plain. He means to take into court 
cases of rents which are fair and moderate rents. A court is established 
to administer equal justice and not to obey the behests of Mr. Parnell. 
If Mr. Parnell, in the name of test cases, carries before the court 
moderate and fair rents — of which there are many in Ireland — the 
court will reject the application, and when the court has rejected the 
application Mr. Parnell and his train will then tell the Irish people they 
have been betrayed, that the court is worthless, and that the Land Act 
ought to meet with their unequivocal denunciation. So he will play 
his game, and so he will gain his object, if the people of Ireland should 
listen to his advice. Because, gentlemen, you know as well as I do, 
that the Parliament of this country is not going to overturn the prin- 
ciples of public order to please any party. And I think you also know 
that the people of this country in any such question relating to the 
government of a portion of the Queen's territory, weak as they may be 
if their cause is unjust, in a just cause are invincible. I am not in any 



56 Speeclies of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone, M.P. 

one of these cases speaking except in the strictest accord with what Mr. 
Parnell has promulgated as his new creed of Irish patriotism ; and I see 
that among the last of his declarations he has said, " We propose " — you 
will observe these words — " we propose to test the Land Act, not to use 
it." Well, but the fair test of an Act is to use it. To use it is what 
Ga van Duffy so earnestly advises ; to use it is what Mr. Dillon would 
permit ; to use it is what the Bishops recommend, " No, you must not 
use it," says Mr. Parnell ; "you must test it " — that is to say, you must 
apply to it a test which will bring to light the disposition of the court 
upon the doctrine that has now been promulgated — that the land rental 
of Ireland, which is stated at 17 millions, is to be reduced to three 
millions to satisfy the just claims of the people. 

THE GREAT SCANDAL AND EVIL OP IRELAND. 

Now, gentlemen, I think I am not wrong in stating that this is a case 
of the utmost gravity. I have spoken very strongly, but I have carefully 
striven to avoid exaggeration, and I am prepared to be tried ujDon each 
and every word that I have used. There is another misfortune of Ire- 
land besides the fact that for the first time in our history these immoral 
and degrading doctrines are taught by men of education, and men of 
responsible station, to their social inferiors. And the other unhtippy 
fact is the traditional sluggishness and incapacity of the healthier por- 
tions of society in Ireland to do " anything whatever for themselves. 
Why, gentlemen, what would happen in this country if schemes of this 
kind were to go forth and to become in any degree dangerous to the 
public peace, and to show their first-fruits in the prevalence of 
agrarian crime, sometimes accomjDanied with horrible and disgraceful 
cruelty, even with loss of life, and if the putting down of that crime 
through the combination by which it was supported proved to be beyond 
the utmost exertions of the paid officers of the law ? Why, what would 
happen would be this — that vast multitudes of loyal citizens would array 
themselves in support and in aid of the ofiicers of the law. But no such 
thing is heard of, unhappily, in Ireland. I hope there will be a change 
in that respect. I am sure it is necessary. 

I will give you yet one more brief quotation from a friend whom I 
need not name, but who writes thus upon the condition of Ireland : — 

" "What is amazing and discouraging is that during the past eighteen months no 
Irishman in Ireland has hfted up his voice to warn his countrymen or to condemn 
the rebel faction led by Mr. Parnell ; that there has been no meeting of any im- 
portance, no movement of any kind, no expression of opinion in support of public 
law and public order. The upper classes — the landowners — are silent or are re- 
fugees, and their power is gone. There is no middle-class there, as there is in 
England, to step forward to sustain the Government and denounce evil. A general 
cowardice seems to prevail among all classes who possess property, and Government 
is expected to preserve peace with no moral force behind it." 

That, gentlemen, is the great scandal and evil of Ireland, and until 
that evil also is removed, the coiiditiou. of Irelaiid will not be thoroughly 
goimd or healthy. 



state of Ireland. 57 



THE KESOURCES OP CIVILIZATION. 

I am glad to see, gentlemen, opposite my eye, tlie name of Mr. Forster, 
and I am further glad that my reference to that name has been the means 
of evoking this testimony of your admiration and confidence in him. 
Amidst difficulties which rarely have been equalled, and Avitli the 
recollection of splendid services personally rendered to the people of 
Ireland from pure, disinterested, individual philanthropy in the early 
days of his youth, Mr. Forster represents in Ireland that cause which I 
hope will triumph. I hope, gentlemen^ it will triumph. I have not 
lost confidence in the people of Ireland. The progress they have made 
in many points, some of which I recounted to you, is to me a proof that 
we ought to rely upon them. But they have dangers and temptations 
and seductions offered to them such as never were before presented to a 
people, and the trial of their virtue is severe. But, nevertheless, they 
will have to go through that trial. We have endeavoured to pay to 
them the debt of justice, and of liberal justice. We have no reason to 
believe they do not acknowledge it. We wish that they may have the 
courage to acknowledge it manfully and openly, and to repudiate, as 
they ought to repudiate, the evil counsels with which it is sought to 
seduce them from the path of duty and of right, as well as of public law 
and of public order. We are convinced that the Irish nation desires to 
take free and full advantage of the Land Act. But Mr. Parnell says : 
" No, you must wait until I have submitted cases ; until I tell you 
whether the court that Parliament has established can be trusted." 
Trusted for what? Trusted to reduce what he says is 17 millions a year 
of property to the three millions which he graciously allows. And 
when he finds it is not to be trusted for that — and I hope in God, gen- 
tlemen, it is not to be trusted for any such purpose — then he will 
endeavour further to work his will by attempting to procure for the 
Irish people the repeal of the Act. But in the meantime what says he % 
That until he has submitted his test cases any farmer who pays his rent 
is a fool — a dangerous denunciation in Ireland, gentlemen — a dangerous 
thing to be denounced as a fool by the head, by a man who has made 
himself the head, of the most violent partj'- in Ireland, and who has 
offered the greatest temptations to the Irish people. That is no small 
matter. He desires, gentlemen, to arrest the operation of the Act — to 
stand, as Aaron stood, between the living and the dead ; but to stand 
there, not as Aaron stood to arrest, but to spread the plague. 

These opinions, gentlemen, are called forth by the grave state of the 
facts ; I do not give them to you as anything more, but they are opinions 
sustained by reference to words and to actions ; they all have regard to 
this great impending crisis in w^hich we depend upon the good sense of 
the people, and in which we are determined that no force and no fear 
of force, and no fear of ruin through force, shall, so far as we are con- 
cerned, and as it is in our power to decide the question, prevent the Irish 
people from having the full and the free benefit of the Land Act. But 
if, when we have that short further experience to which I have referred, 
it shall then appear that there is still to be fought a final conflict in 
Ireland, between law on the one side and sheer lawlessness upon the 



58 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

other ; if tbe law, purged from defect and from any taint of injustice, is 
still to be repelled and refused, and the iirst conditions of political 
society are to be set at nought, then I say, gentlemen, without hesitation, 
the resources of civilization against its enemies are not yet exhausted. I 
shall recognise in full, when the facts are ripe— and their ripeness is 
approaching — the duty and the responsibility of the Government. I 
call u23on all orders and degrees of men, not in these two kingdoms, but 
in these three, to support the Government in the discharge of its duty 
and in acquitting itself of that responsibility. I, for one, in that state 
of facts, relying upon my rellow-countrymen in these three nations 
associated together, have not a doubt of the result. 



FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION. 

{yiT LEEDS, OCTOBER 8, 1881.) 

I AM very sensible of the great honour which you have done me 
to-day in presenting me with this address. It contains, in short compass, 
allusions to many points of the greatest importance. So far as those 
embrace the legislative action of the Government, I need not, I think, 
assure you of our great anxiety to make progress in the direction, and 
generally in the manner that you desire ; but it is only right that I 
should call your attention — and, indeed, I must take every opportunity 
that presents itself of calling the attention of the public at large — to the 
very serious obstacles that now impede the progress of business in the 
House of Commons, and to assure you that for the sake of every interest, 
and for the sake of every measure, it has become a matter of vital 
importance to consider in v/hat way that great and noble legislative 
instrument, the House of Commons— itself the noblest legislative 
instrument in the world — can be restored to that efficiency which it 
once possessed, if possible even with an extension and increase of that 
efficiency. Because, gentlemen, experience has proved that with the 
progress of time and with the great accumulation of legislative labours 
of which this century has been the witness, instead of clearing off the 
call upon us for fresh exertion, the developing wants of an enlarged 
society continually augment the long catalogue of our arrears, and if we 
are to deal with them seriously it must be not only by approaching each 
of them with the instrumental power we now possess, but by attempting 
some great and effectual improvement in the rules for working the 
instrument itself. 

THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL TREATY. 

There is, however, one of these questions to which I will particularly 
refer — the question of the French Treaty now imder negotiation — 



Free Trade and Protection. 59 

thougli adjourned negotiation, still under negotiation — with the Com- 
missioners in France. I will not anticipate the results of that negotia- 
tion. It would be premature. But as to the basis on which the 
negotiation is conducted you may rely uj)on it that we are in no doubt 
or difficulty. We think that we understand the general sentiment of 
the British public — the commercial public — upon the subject, and our 
own opinions are in conformity with that sentiment. I, for my part, 
look back Avith the deepest interest upon the share that I had in con- 
cluding — at least I will not say so much in concludiug — but in conducting 
on this side of the water, and within the walls of Parliament as well as 
in administration, the proceedings v/hich led to that memorable French 
Treaty of 1860. It is quite true that that treaty did not produce the 
whole of the effects that some too sanguine anticipations may possibly 
have expected from it — that it did not produce a universal smash of 
protective duties as I wish it had throughout the civilised world. But 
it did something. It enormously increased the trade between this 
country and France. It knit more closely than they had ever been knit 
before the sentiments of goodwill between this country and France. It 
effectually checked and traversed in the year 1860 tendencies of a very 
diflerent kind towards needless alarms and panics and tendencies 
towards convulsion and confusion in Europe. There was no more 
powerful instrument for confining and controlling those wayward and 
angry spirits, at that particular crisis, than the Commercial Treaty with 
France. It produced no inconsiderable effect for a number of years upon 
the legislation of various European countries, Avhich tended less decisively 
than we could have desired, but still intelligibly and beneficially, in the 
direction of freedom of trade. 

FREE TRADE IMPREGNABLE. 

There has been of late a reaction, as we know, in various countries. 
The political economy of Germany walks in a direction adverse to ours. 
But as I have said, and I do not hesitate to repeat it to you, when we 
observe what notions are abroad in our country, what doctrines are held, 
what specifics are recommended for the purpose of recovering trade from 
its partial contraction — I won't say decay, for decayed it has not — but 
from its partial contraction, 1 tliink we cannot very much wonder if the 
same errors have scope and go abroad in other countries and have more 
influence on the legislation of other countries tlian, after our large and 
rich experience, they are likely to have in ours. For although, as this 
is not a political assembly, I have not the slightest intention to make a 
political speech to you, yet I may say that I express the firmest and 
strongest conviction that no Government that can exist in this country 
Avill either soon or late pledge its responsibility to any proposals for 
restoring protective duties. You might as well attempt to overthrow 
any institution of the country as to overthrow the Free Trade legislation 
It is not in vain that a country of this kind, with the opportunities that, 
thank God, we possess for free deliberation, devotes a quarter of a. 
century of its life towards breaking down its ancient and complicated 
tariff and making its trade free to all the world. We are not in the 
habit of undoing our great legislative acts. Foreign observers of the 



60 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

proceedings of this country find much to criticise, find something to 
admire, and one of the subjects Avhich they select for admiration is this, 
that progress in this country, if it be not always rapid, yet is always 
sure, and that when we have made steps in advance we do not follow 
them by undoing our own labour and making steps in retreat. And 
therefore, gentlemen, as regards this legislation, you might as well 
attempt to overthrow trial by jury ; you might as well attempt to over- 
throw the right of petition or of public meeting ; you might as well 
attempt to tear out of our social and political system any one of the most 
cherished ideas that Englishmen have inherited from centuries of history, 
as to overset the Eree Trade legislation. Do not suppose that on that 
account it is my opinion that the strange theories that have now for a 
moment lifted their heads from their native obscurity into light are 
matters of small- importance, or will do no mischief. 

I have spoken on this subject in another place. They may become 
the subject matter of very serious conflict between parties ; they may 
create and propagate delusion in various c[uarters and places of the 
country ; they may be made use of for this or that particular view ; 
they may influence this or that election ; they may lead to great waste 
of time, and to a good deal of confusion in the relations of party and 
politics — all these are evils which I hope we shall be able to obviate 
and to keep dow]i. But I wish to point out to you that at least, in my 
firm conviction, there is a limit to these evils, and that the great legisla- 
tion which marked the lifetime of Sir Eobert Peel, of Mr. Cobden, and 
with which the name of Mr. Bright is inseparably c jnnected — is, in my 
opinion, resting upon such foundations that nothing can shake it, and 
that the speeches, and the articles, and the treatises that are now floating 
about in the atmosphere pass as the wind around the solid structure 
within whose walls we stand, and have no more eftect than the idle 
breeze has upon the stones of this solid structure. 

I ought to say one word more before I pass from this subject. I 
must say a word upon the subject of the Commercial Treaty with 
France. I read with great interest the remarks of Sir Stafford Northcote 
on this subject, and I am bound to say that I think they state the case 
very fairly. It is a balance of the considerations which we had to take 
into view. There are great disadvantages attaching to all commercial 
treaties, and the most serious disadvantage of them all is this, that theie 
is a great tendency — when you are only suggesting to people that they 
should do what is good for themselves — there is a great tendency to 
assume the position of requesting them to do something simply because 
it is good for you. There is a tendency to misrepresent and dislocate, 
if I may say so, the true idea of commerce, which rests and is founded 
upon this principle — that in the operations of commerce it is absolutely 
impossible for a country to do good to itself without at the same time 
doing good to other people. You may depend ujDon this, gentlemen — I 
cannot undertake at this moment to say, though we have good hopes — I 
will not undertake at this moment to say whether we shall have a 
treaty with France or not ; but upon this you may rely, that much as 
we value association with France, great as is the political value of a 
well-concluded commercial negotiation, we do not think it our duty, nor 



Free Trade and Protection. 61 

within the limits of our rights to purchase that political advantage by a 
sacrifice of the true principles of our commercial relations ; and if you 
have a treaty with France, you may depend upon it that it shall not be, 
with our assent, taking it all in all, a treaty of retrogression either small 
or great. 

I will not say many words to you about myself. Although I spring 
from a commercial family, yet when I entered Parliament it was not for 
a good many years that my mind was turned to economical subjects ; in 
truth, it was not until 1841, when, on the proposal of Sir Eobert Peel, 
I accepted the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade. At that 
period the Board of Trade was the Department which administered to a 
great extent the functions, which have since then passed principally into 
the hands of the Treasury, connected with the fiscal laws of the country. 
I had inherited, as nearly the whole Conservative party had, and like- 
wise, as you know, no inconsiderable portion of the Liberal party down 
to that period had inherited, the ideas and traditions of Protection. 
But when it became my duty in the Board of Trade to apply myself, 
with the energies of youth which I then possessed, to the consideration 
of those subjects, I need not say that I found those traditions crumbled 
away rapidly under my feet, and before I had been there twelve months 
my name had become a by-word, and was quoted in Protectionist 
assemblies as that of a man Avho was not to be trusted. It was quite 
true, gentlemen. Moreover, they found out about the same time that 
Sir Uobert Peel could not be trusted, and not only that, but as we got 
older and older, and lived on from year to year, the matter got worse 
and worse, and we became still less worthy of the public confidence on 
the ground of maintaining any system of Protection. Well, now, gentle- 
men, as we are in an assembly of no vast numbers, althoiigh of great 
influence and power, and as we are not met upon political or party 
grounds, just let me call your attention for a few minutes to a subject 
which 1 purposely omitted yesterday in my address in a larger room. 
The main proposition is capable of being considered with the utmost 
calmness and coolness — whether we have been right, after all, in what 
we have been doing, or whether a great delusion has passed upon us. And 
I do this not for your sakes, or for my own, but for the sake of weaker 
brethren — if I may so venture to call them — who really have, in certain 
cases and in various classes of the community, embraced, and I have no 
doubt in perfect good faith, the belief that we have been acting under a 
delusion, and that Free Trade has been an error and a failure. For- 
tunately, it does not require to be discussed at any great length, and I 
think I can go through it without making any outrageous claim upon 
your patience. 

ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION. 

I take the date of 1840 as that of the last year in which the protective 
system enjoyed perfect peace. In every year after that it was subject 
to a series of discussions and disturbances, which, in the first place, pro- 
duced the most grievous effects upon its health ; and in the second led 
to its utter downfall. But before 1840 what was the condition of the 
country ? If I regard the condition of this country as to wealth, I find 



62 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone, M.P. 

that between the begiiiiiing of the century and 1840 there was a very- 
large increase of the population, owing to causes partly healthful and 
partly othermse, but the wealth of the country increased in a less pro- 
portion than the population ; and what was much more important than 
this, it increased in the hands of the class already possessed of wealth, 
but no share of this increase went to the mass of the people. I am afraid 
I am correct in saying that if we take the mass of our agricultural 
population in particular, the history of these years was a history of 
going from bad to worse, a history of increasing social degradation, a 
history of absolute want in various degrees, and in many or most of the 
counties in this country, of the means of decent lodgings, decent clothing, 
and sufficient feeding, until that great Act, one of the wisest and most 
important of modern legislation, the new Poor Law Act, was passed in 
1834, and with slow and sure operation began to check the more griev- 
ous forms of certain miscliiefs, but of course without the power of being 
able to supply the new vital energies which had to be sought in other 
quarters. That, generally speaking, was our material condition. And 
what was our moral condition? I Avell remember on the first occasion 
ot" my entering Parliament how we heard from well-intentioned men 
the sorest and the most just lamentations over the increase of crime 
under the blessed influence of Protection, and a well-informed author 
quotes the numbers thus for the crimes committed in England and 
taken notice of by public justice : that in 1809 they had been 5,350 ; 
in 1818 they had swollen, after the Peace, and Avith the special causes of 
distress that the Peace and that the unhappy Corn Law brought with 
them, they had swollen to 14,254 ; and 1829 they rose to 18,075. That, 
gentlemen, I give you as an indication of the moral influences attaching 
to the system of Protection, because I warn and entreat you never to be 
content to argue the c^uestion of free commerce as if it were a material 
question alone. It is just as strong in its political, in its social, and in 
its moral aspects as it is in its operation upon the production and increase 
of wealth. 

UNDER FEEE TRADE. 

That is all I will say to you on the state of things before 1810. Now, 
let me consider what has happened since 1840. In 1841 the population 
of this country — the three kingdoms — was twenty-six and a-half millions. 
In 1881 the population had increased to 35 millions ; the increase was 
eight and a-half millions, or very nearly, and closely enough for my 
present purpose, an increase of 33 per cent. Now, I will want to 
compare, first with the increased population tlie increase of wealth, and 
though 1 shall resort to the Income-tax in the first place for this purpose^ 
I shall do it safely, because we all know that, while the wealthy classes 
have been growing wealthier, the poorer classes have likewise been 
gradually emerging from their indigence, and that freedom of commerce 
has showered its benefits over them, speaking generally, v/ith no less 
liberality and no less efliciency than over the capitalists of this country. 
The increase of wages in this country has borne, if not a full proportion, 
yet some proportion, to the increase of capital, and has formed a solid 
addition to the comforts of the people, such as, at any rate, whether 



Free Trade and Protection, 63 

sufficient or not — and of that 1 need not speak — is without example in 
our prior history. Let me look at the progress of v/ealth as shown by 
the Income-tax. The income taxable to the Income-Tax in 1842 was 
251 millions ; in 1880 it was 542 millions. I don't include Ireland in 
the return. Very large amounts of income had in the meantime, 
whether wisely or unwisely — and I need not enter on that subject 
now — been either wholly or partially excluded, and I think that the 
tax may have lost as much as 40 millions of taxable income in that way. 
That would make £582,000,000 to compare with £251,000,000. The 
result of that is, that while the population of the country had grown 
33 X->er cent, the wealth of the country, instead of growing as it had done 
before at a rate slower than the population, had increased, and, tested 
by the Income-tax, at the rate of 130 per cent. ; and if we were able to 
exhibit the mass of the income of labour, it is probable that it would 
have exhibited a growth hardly, if at all, less remarkable. The trade of 
the country increased by the exports of British produce ; and in this 
increase of exports I need not say the working ^people have a share 
perhaps as important even as the capitalist. Where in 1840 they were 
£51,000,000, in 1880 they were £223,000,000 ; so that while the popu- 
lation of the country had grown 33 per cent., the export trade of the 
country had grown at the rate of 340 per cent. As to the savings of the 
mass of the population — I only quote this as a partial fact of interest, 
for we have unfortunately no effectual means of exhibiting the subject 
completely — the savings deposited in savings banks, which had been 
£24,500,000 in 1840 were £75,500,000 in 1880 ; and undoubtedly that 
£75,500,000 was far more representative of the savings of the working 
classes through the Post Office savings banks in 1880 than the 
£24,500,000 in 1840 had been representative of the savings of that 
class. 

If I turn to the other side, what was the condition of the country in 
regard to pauperism and crime ? The earliest returns that I have found 
of the able-bodied paupers of England and Wales gives for 1849 a 
number of 201,000 ; and for 1880, with a vastly larger population, a 
number of 111,000. Still m.ore important than the returns of pauperism 
is the return of crime, and the persons convicted of crime, who in 1840 
had risen to 34,000 ; in 1881, according to our returns, which may not 
precisely exhibit the proper state of things — because changes have taken 
place as between summary and non-summary jurisdiction, but which, 
upon the whole, will exhibit them — these convictions had sunk from 
34,000 to 15,600. I have kept my word in so far that these facts have 
been presented to you in a brief and summary form. But are they not 
administrative and conclusive facts ? Is it possible for any reasonable 
man not to be satisfied with figures like these ? 

"a highly respectable prophet of evil." 

As to the reality of our progress, and as to the cause of our progress, I 
will say another word shortly. Still there are delusions — at least there 
are uncomfortable dreams to break the rest of some of our fellow- 
citizens. They are dreadfully afflicted with this excess of imports. In 
passing I must pay a tribute of respect to one class of Protectionists, and 



64 Speeches, of Bight Hon. William Ewart Q-lachtone, M.P. 

that is to tlie gallant men who, under all circumstances, with following 
or without following, with proof or without proof/and quite irrespective 
of the possibility of being able to turn the matter to account at elections, 
stick to their old protective doctrine. I mention that because the subject 
of the balance of trade irresistibly and rapidly calls to my mind the 
name and figure of Mr. Newdegate, who has been a consistent, but I 
must say a highly respectable prophet of evil, and respected for his 
unswerving integrity, and for the great regard he has often shown for 
Constitutional principles in connection with this painful subject of the 
balance of trade. But you are aware by the old doctrine of the balance 
of trade it is shown we have suffered a loss of 160 millions of money 
Avithin a comparatively short period — about a generation of man. That 
is a very heavy loss, and how have we paid for it ? Oh, you pay for all 
that in bullion. Well, but the extraordinary fact is this. Here the 
balance of trade has been most terribly against us during the last five 
years. From 1876 to 1880, when the imports — these terrible imports 
that frown upon us and intimidate us in every port of the country as if 
they were all meant for dynamite explosions — these imports have been 
in an excess of £622,000,000 over the exports, -and yet the country is 
not absolutely ruined. But while these £'622,000,000 have been im- 
ported — and we have certainly had to pay for what we imported — 
instead of losing the bullion, the imports of bullion have been slightly 
in excess of the exports. The impor;;s of bullion for these five years 
have amounted to £147,000,000, and the exports have amounted to 
£144,000,000, so that besides the £622,0.00,000 of goods which we have 
got, we have got £.3,000,000 more bullion into the country. But, then, 
it is said, " Oh, but we have paid for it in securities." Why, Sir, anyone 
Avho goes into the money market will know that the investments of 
England abroad, varying somewhat from year to year, have been tending 
rapidly and constantly upwards ; and were we here to examine into and 
analyse the history and meaning of these vast imports, you know very 
well it would be my dutj'^ to point out that no inconsiderable proportion 
of them represents the dividends and the interest receivable and received 
by us upon our enormous investments abroad — investments which are 
valued by the best financial authorities — non-official, but the best private 
authorities- at about 1,300 millions of money, and the income from 
which, coming back to us every year, mainly in the shape of imports, 
cannot be said to be less than 60 millions a year — our income in foreign 
countries from the surplus of wealth which we have sent out of our 
country to invest. 

So much, gentlemen, for the balance of trade. But still they are not 
satisfied ; and you are taught to believe that the foreign trade of this 
country is wasting away, and that other countries, owing to their greater 
wisdom, have none of the inconveniences to contend with that we are 
obliged to encounter, and are constantly growing in all the elements of 
prosperity. And the two countries which our misguided brethren select 
for special admiration are America and France. Well, now, the com- 
merce of France, above all others, requires to be divided when you treat 
its exports between manufactures and produce, because the exports of its 
produce go on without any material reference to this protective system. 



Free Trade and Protection. 65 

Our exports, as you know very well, fell seriously between 1873 and 
1879. But do you suppose — because we are invited to assume — that the 
exports of manufactured goods in other countries did not similarly fall ? 
How did France, with its protective system, fare in respect to the decrease 
of exports ? Our exports fell from a high degree to one comparatively 
much reduced, but not so much reduced as the exports of French manu- 
factures, for the manufactures exported by France in 1849 were 
^49,000,000 sterling ; in 1879 they had sunk to £34,000,000 sterling, 
and that was a greater diminution measured by percentage than the 
diminution which took place in this country. So that the existence of 
the protective system did not in the slightest degree mitigate, but, on. 
the contrary, aggravated a decline in the export of manufactured goods, 
as it would do in this country if, unhappil}^, we were to be so unwise — 
which we never shall be — as to try this deadly experiment. 

TRADE IN AMERICA. 

Well, now, there is also an idea that America is pursuing a course of 
profound wisdom in regard to its protective system, and we are told that 
under the blessed shelter of a system of that kind the tender infancy of 
trades is cherished, which afterwards, having attained vigour, will go 
forth into neutral markets and possess the world. Gentlemen, is that 
true 1 America has been too long in various degrees a protective country. 
Have the manufactures of America gone forth and possessed the world \ 
How do they compete with you in those quarters of the world which 
are, speaking generally, outside the influences of Protection ? Gentle- 
men, to the whole of Asia, to the whole of Africa, and to the whole of 
Australasia — which, in the main, are outside this question, and may 
fairly be described in the rough as presenting to us neutral markets, 
where we meet America without fear or favour, one way or the other — 
the whole of the exports of the United States of manufactured goods to 
those countries amount to ,£4,751,000 ; while the exports to those same 
quarters from the United Kingdom were £78,140,000. Gentlenien, the 
fact is this — America is a young country, with enormous vigour and 
enormous internal resources. She has committed — I say it, I hope, not 
with disrespect ; I say it with strong and cordial sympathy, but with 
much regret — she is committing errors of which we set her an example. 
But from the enormous resources of her home market, the development 
of which internally is not touched by Protection, she is able to commit 
those errors with less fatal consequences, with less inconvenient conse- 
quences upon her people than we experienced when we committed them ; 
and the enormous development of American resources within, casts 
almost entirely into the shade the puny character of the export of her 
manufactures to the neutral markets of the world. And here, gentle- 
men, I am reminded that I was guilty on a certain occasion of stating 
in an article— not a political article — that, in my opinion, it was far 
from improbable that as the volume of the future was unrolled, America, 
with its vast population and its wonderful resources, and not less with 
that severe education which, from the high price of labour, America is 
receiving in the strong necessity of resorting to every description of 
labour-saving contrivances, and consequent development, not only on a 

D 



66 Sj^eeches of Right Hon. William Eicart Gladstone, M.P. 

large scale, but down to the smallest scale of the mechanical genius of 
the country — on that account, the day may come when that country 
may claim to possess the commercial primacy of the world. I gave sad 
offence to many — to many of those who tell you that they are ruined 
already. They v/ere extremely annoyed and offended on account of 
this, which was not a positive prediction, hut an intimation of a proha- 
hility. I won't enter into it now. I know that was an offence to the 
vanity of those who are vain among us. But for my part, gentlemen, I 
think it one of the most sacfed duties of a public man to tell the things 
which he thinks to be of interest and importance, and which may 
perhaps convey a salutary warning to his countrymen, whether his 
countrymen like to hear them or not ; and I will say this, that as long 
as America adheres to the protective system, your commercial primacy 
is secure. Nothing in the world can WTest it from you while America 
continues to fetter her own strong hands and arms, and with these 
fettered arms is content to compete with you, who are free, in neutral 
markets. And as long as America follows the doctrine of Protection, or 
as long as America follows the doctrines now known as those of Fair 
Trade, you are perfectl}^ safe, and you need not allow, any of you, even 
your lightest slumbers to be disturbed by the fear that America will 
take from you your commercial primacy. 

ENGLAND'S SHARE OF THE TRADE OP THE WORLD. 

Now, gentlemen, let us see what is our case w^ith regard to the trade 
of the world. We in this country — whose life-blood the vampire of 
Free Trade is insidiously sucking — let us see what share in this little 
island we have got of the Free Trade of the world. In 1880 our trade 
with the world amounted to 698 millions in value, the largest, I believe, 
ever known of imports and exports taken together, and, of course, re- 
exports as Avcll. In 1873, the year of our largest exports, I believe the 
total trade represented 682 millions. But I will take our worst year — 
the year 1879, which was the year the darkness of which called forth 
all the owls and the bats of the country and sent them croaking abroad 
in order to disturb us, and if possible to teach us to walk in the ways of 
another policy — in 1879, it is quite true, the trifling sum of 612 millions 
was all that passed through our hands in this business of exchange, with 
a population of 35 millions of people. Well, now, let us compare the 
trade and population of some other countries. The German Empire, 
with 40 millions of people, had 371 millions of trade. The United 
States, with 50 millions of people, had 239 millions of external trade, 
most of which, or an enormous share of which, you know was owing to 
our demand for the food and provisions that, thank God, she produces. 
And while we, with a population of 35 millions, had a tracle of 612 
millions, these two countries together — two of the most civilised countries 
in the world, both of them highly protective — had, wdth a population of 
90 millions, a trade of 610 millions ; so that, comparing ourselves with 
these great and intelligent countries, man with man, you have nearly 
three times the amount of trade there is in their hancls. Take, again, 
three other countries which I take on account of the large figures they 
present, their high place in the trade of the world. France has 313 



Free Trade and Protection. 67 

iiiiilions of trade, witli 38 millions of people. Eupsia lias 183 inillions 
of trade, with 80 millions of people. Holland Las 116 millions of trade 
— a good deal of wliicli, as we all know, is transit trade for the supply 
of the interior j)arts of the Continent — Holland, I say, has 116 millions 
of trade, with five millions, saj'-, of people. Here, again, we have a 
population of 121 millions, with a trade of 612 millions, exactly that 
which in the disastrous year of 1879 fell to our share with a people of 
35 millions. 

Now the reason I have quoted these particulars is because I have not 
yet encountered that which is the favourite plea of our erring brethren — 
namely, that this is all owing to the railways and the telegraphs. You 
know that is what they say. They say, "We admit there is some 
increase in trade." They do admit positively that 450 millions is a 
larger sum than 51 millions— but it is all owing to the railways and 
telegraphs ; but if it is owing to the railways and telegraphs, why have 
not the railways and telegraphs carried the trade of the world from our 
hands to the hands of Germany, America, France, Eussia, and Holland, 
which are full of railways and telegraphs — some of them even fuller 
than we are ? Why are they not pointing to our de23ression of trade and 
showing how small our population and trade are — for they are protective 
countries except Holland — showing how small they are in comparison 
with theirs, instead of pointing to them in irrefragable figures showing 
that Free Trade ^Zt(s the railways have done for us ten times more than 
Protection flus railways have done for France, or America, or for 
Germany, or for any of the rest of the countries. 

THE NAVIGATION LAWS. 

And, gentlemen, that brings me to the last point that I intend to 
argue, but really, I have made very little argument. I have not 
required to make argument, or to wander into the mazes of political 
economy. Very simple facts and figures, after all not outrageous in 
their number, have constituted the pith and the substance of the state- 
ment I have laid before you. But I am desirous if I can to get rid of 
this remaining false impression about the railways and the telegraphs, 
which have done an infinity of good for us ; but at the same time I am 
perhaps entitled to say — ^because through the medium of one of our 
most widely circulating monthly magazines, before the cares of oflice 
were upon me, I endeavoured to make a very close and careful analysis 
by comparison of the consequences of railway and telegraphic enterprise 
on the one side and of commercial legislation in the direction of freedom 
on the other, and seemed to myself to establish — at any rate no one has 
contested the argument — the conclusion that, although very much is due 
to the railways and telegraphs, still more is due to that simple and happy 
specific of unbinding the arm of British enterprise, which formerly we 
kept in fetters, and allowing it fair play in the general competition of 
the world. But I think there is one point yet remaining, which, if 
possible, affords still clearer demonstration than any that I have quoted, 
and that is what has happened to our shipping. Now, if we compare 
what has happened to the shipping of this country with what has 
happened to shipping elsewhere, tlien, indeed, the results of tha 

D 2 



6S Speeches of Right JHon. William ^wart G-ladstone, M.P. 

comparison are remarkable ; because, gentlemen, you may remember 
that when tbe discussions on the repeal of the Navigation Laws arose, 
it was contended, and contended with some truth — I felt it myself, for 
one — that the pressure of foreign protective and prohibitory laws upon 
our shipping is much severer than upon our goods, inasmuch as it often 
happens, for example, that the law of commerce requiring a cargo to be 
sent to a certain port in a British ship in free competition with a ship of 
the country to which that port belongs, that that same law would 
require, if human law permitted, that the next voyage should be from 
that port to some other port to which the law of the country does not 
permit the British ship to go at all, and from which it is excluded by an 
absolute prohibition, while its own ship is allowed to go to it. However, 
I need not enter into these details. It is admitted that in no case could 
competition be more severe. I believe in no case could it be so severe 
as in the case of the competition of British ships with foreign ships. 
Consequently, on the occasion of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, the 
whole Protectionist party of the country went into the deepest mourning, 
and they said in solemn tones— for they rose to higher flights than 
usual — and said it represented not Protection only but patriotism, a 
word of which we have heard a good deal on some more recent occasions. 
They told us that the repeal of the Navigation Laws was the destruction 
of the wooden walls of old England, and meant neither .more nor less, 
according to the favourite phrase, than her reduction to the rank of a 
third-rate Power. All you who are old enough — and I am happy to 
think some of you are not old enough — will recollect the appalling 
vaticinations which went forth "thick as the leaves in Vallombrosa" 
over the whole of the country. But the result has been where the 
competition was the sharpest there the prosperity has been the most 
extraordinary — I might say, had it not been realised, in fact almost 
incredible. The tonnage of Great Britain in 1840 was 6,490,000 tons. 
That tonnage had risen in 1880 to 41,348,000 tons, or was multiplied 
more than sixfold. 

Now, that is an enormous result, and that is a result not due to 
railways, because the railways do not run over the sea. It is due to 
British energy working without any other advantage than that. And it 
is a serious advantage, especially in certain states of the world. It may 
be that we have become the home of the shipbuilding trade of the 
world. But as between nation and nation, that is a very small matter. 
The shipbuilder of the Clyde will build a ship for a man in Havre on 
the same terms as he will build a . ship for a man in Hull, and it will 
cost him as much to send the ship round to Hull as it will for him to 
send it round to Havre. Therefore, there is no factitious advantage to 
account for this astonishing result. 

But I have got something to explain that in my mind is most 
satisfactory, although it might be taken on the other side of the objection. 
I do not at all mean to say that our ships are more than six times the 
bulk in 1880 than they were in 1840. Not at all. They are nothing of 
the kind. The reports that I have given to you are the reports founded 
upon clearances inward and outward. They are the measures of the 
actual tonnage employed in doing actual work. It is quite true we 



JVee Trade and Protection, 69 

liave not got six times the capital involved in the fabrics of ships. 
What does that mean ? What will be your reply ? So much the better 
With the smaller capital involved you are doing a greater work. We 
are doing six times the work and six times the amount of tonnage, 
because of the employment of steam, of larger vessels, and of better 
machinery on board, but with nothing approaching an increase of six 
times the number of seamen, and doing the work, moreover, which six 
times the number of seamen alone could, under the old methods of 
navigation, have pursued, and that is not owing to railways ; that is 
owing to the effect of freedom, combined with the remarkable advantages 
which have been gained by changing from wooden to iron shipbuilding 
in the conduct of the commerce of the w^orld. 

EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE ON SHIPPING. 

And now, gentlemen, what is the state of the case with regard to 
protected countries ? There is a great bugbear that is continually 
paraded before us — the bugbear of the United States. And what has 
become of the shipping of the United States, and what has become of 
that shipping in its competition with British shipping ] That shipping 
competes with British shipping not only upon equal but upon favoured 
terms, for this reason — when a British ship goes from hence to America, 
goes from hence, say, to New York, to Boston, or to New Orleans, and 
then has got to make its next step, it has not got a free choice of the 
ports of the world. It cannot sail round upon what the Americans call 
the coasting trade, round Cape Horn to San Francisco. The British 
ship cannot, but the American ship may, consequently the British ship 
carrying cargo to America has a smaller choice, and, therefore, a restricted 
advantage. I only say that to show you that there is an inequality of 
law in the competition which is entirely against the British ships, and 
in favour of American ships. Gentlemen, my boyhood was spent at the 
mouth of the Mersey, and in those days I used to see those beautiful 
American liners, the packets bet^veen New York and Liverpool, which 
then conducted the bulk and the pick of the trade between the two 
countries. The Americans were deemed to be so entirely superior to 
us in shipbuilding and navigation that they had four-fifths of the whole 
trade between the two countries in their hands, and that four-fifths was 
the best of the trade ; and but the dregs were left in comparison to the 
one-fifth, the British shipping that entered into it. What is the case 
now when Free Trade has operated, and has applied its stimulus to the 
intelligence of England, and when on the other hand the action of the 
Americans has been restrained by the enactment, the enhancement, and 
the tightening of the protective system ? The case is now that the 
scales are exactly reversed, and instead of America doing four-fifths, and 
that the best, we do four-fifths of the business, and that the best, and 
the Americans ]3ick up, if I may say so, the leavings of the British 
and transact the residue of the trade. Not because they are inferior to 
us in anything ; it would be a fatal error to suppose it ; not because 
they have less intelligence, or because they have less perseverance. 
They are your descendants ; they are your kinsmen ; and they are fully 
equal to you in all that goes to make human energy and power, but they 



70 Speeches of Right Hon. William EwaH Gladstone, M.P. 

are labouring under the delusion from whicli you yourselves have hut 
recently escaped, and in which some misguided fellow-citizens seek 
again to entangle you. In 1850 — I think I am right in saying that in 
1850 the relative percentages of America and England in the sea trade of 
the world were represented by 15 for America and 41 for England. In 
the sea trade of the world, in 1880, the 41 of England had grown to 49, 
and the 15 of America had dwindled dov/n to 6. There, gentlemen, are 
the genuine effects of a protective system exhibited before you, mitigated 
in the case of America by its own internal energies, and the enormous 
field that is open to them — a field which in your case you would not 
find, were you unhappily disposed to follow America in her errors. And 
the last word I will say to you is this, in the way of statistical statement : 
of the whole sea trade of the world, the 35,000,000 inhabiting these 
islands possess 52 per cent., more than one-half of the entire sea trade 
carried on by the entire human race, civilised or uncivilised. And yet 
so unthankful are we for the blessings we enjoy, and so unmindful of 
the dangers we have escaped, and the damages we have long suffered, 
that there are still many who go to British constituencies to invite them 
deliberately to march back from light into darkness, people who vainly 
and idly jjersuade themselves that if they are only sufficiently diligent 
and persevering they will convert their country to those pernicious 
notions. 

Gentlemen, I have now fully satisfied what I think my duty on this 
matter in addressing to you a discourse that I admit, so far as you are 
concerned, is frivolous. It has been uninteresting to you. You knew 
it all before. I could tell you nothing you did not know. But some 
are not in the same happy condition. I hope that I have kept faithfully 
to the promise that I made that I should endeavour not to give a tinge 
of party to the discussion on which I have entered to-day, which 
yesterday I felt myself compelled to do. I hope I have faithfully 
observed that pledge ; and I sliall conclude b} expressing my belief that 
every man in this room sees the force of these facts and figures, however 
curtly and imperfectly stated, and my firm conviction that the people 
of this nation have now come to understand and to value the system of 
commercial freedom, and that they will maintain those beneficent and 
philanthropic and most fruitful laws as among the solid and permanent 
institutions of the country, fraught with blessings to every order of this 
community and to all the nations of the world. 



The Worh of the Government. 71 



THE WORK OF THE GOVEENiMENT. 

{AT LEEDS, OCTOBER 8, 1881.) 

I HAVE seen many remarkable sights since I came to Leeds. In tliis 
hali last night I saw and partook of a splendid banquet. It was a noble 
sight. In the streets of Leeds, in a long procession of two miles, I saw 
one nobler still : a population, in which your vast town was reinforced 
from the neighbourhoods around in hundreds and thousands welcomed 
me as we passed along the line. And never in my life have I seen in 
so immense an assemblage, so remarkable, so singular a combination of 
an unbounded enthusiasm with the most perfect respect for order, and 
with a total absence at every point of our progress of anything and 
everything which could offend. But, gentlemen, to-day I witness a 
sight more remarkable and more acceptable still. I am now for the first 
time brought into contact, face to face, and within the walls of this 
building — which has been the scene of many a great discussion and 
noble triumph — I am brought here for the lirst time, into contact with 
the masses of those teeming thousands who, 18 months ago, chose me to 
be the Member for Leeds. And so, gentlemen, in a brief, rough, and 
imperfect manner, my desire is, so far as your patience, soreh^ tried by 
the numbers in which you have met, and so far as my own limited 
power will permit, to render to you this da}^, and thus far, some 
account of the stewardship which you honoured me by conferring- 
upon me. 

The period of 18 months which has elapsed since the election has 
been one of great interest, and in many respects of great anxiet}^ I 
will not now refer to matters that I have fully discussed before other 
audiences in the town of Leeds, but I will endeavour, by way of general 
survey, to give you some such idea of our proceedings as may suffice to shew 
you that we have not been unfaithful to our trust, and that, surrounded 
by a body of the most honourable and most able colleagues that ever 
were associated in the service of the Crown and people — some of whom 
are upon this platform at this moment — I have endeavoured to labour, 
with their aicl, earnestly in your cause. Gentlemen, with respect to 
Ireland I will only say one word. We have looked to what is called 
coercion in Ireland not with satisfaction, not with levity, but as a 
mournful necessity, which it has been the duty of Parliament to employ, 
exactly as in other cases we are compelled to put in motion the powers 
of the State for the purpose of maintaining pu blic order and the riglits 
of private life against evil-doers. But it is not to force, it is to remedial 
legislation , that we look with hope ; and of that remedial legislation I 
will only say that we are determined to adopt every measure that may 
be found to be necessary in order to secure to the people of Ireland the 
fullest benefits from those beneficent labours which Parliament has this 
year so freely bestowed in their behalf. 



72 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. 

Now, gentlemen, it has been remarked in some gatherings of the 
opposite party that we have not effected an economy in the public 
expenditure. Certainly, gentlemen, it is true ; and I told the country 
before the election — when I did not know who would succeed to power 
— I publicly proclaimed, before the dissolution of Parliament, that it 
was impossible for some time that there could be economy. You know 
well, gentlemen, that in the case of every extravagant man he not only 
spends a great deal of money, but he contracts a great deal of liability ; 
and it is rather too much that we should be reproached for having 
failed to effect a reduction of the public expenditure, when we have been 
compelled to ask from Parliament millions of money for the purpose of 
meeting the very difficulties and of paying the liabilities of honour and 
of duty, not to say interest, which our predecessors were kind enough 
to bequeath to us. But, gentlemen, besides the evil of a vast ex- 
penditure, which it was not in our power at once to contract, we found 
another evil staring us in the face, and that was the evil of successive 
deficiencies in the public revenue as compared with the expenditure. 
Now you will agree with me that whether our expenditure be small or 
whether it be large, we ought to pay our way, and at least we have done 
this ; we have been able thus far to substitute equilibrium and even 
surplus for deficiency, and we have done that without adding to the 
taxation of the country. On the contrary, I believe that the changes 
and the adjustments which we have introduced into finance have done 
more to relieve those who pay the taxes than to impose charges upon 
them. 

THE TREATY OF BERLIN. 

But, gentlemen, before the election a very large share of the atten- 
tion and interest of the nation was attracted by the policy which had 
been pursued abroad, and ])y embarrassments growing out of that 
policy. The Treaty of Berlin had contained stijDulations, not due, I 
am sorry to say, to the beneficent action of the Government of this 
country, but still stipulations which, although injured in many points 
and restricted through British agency, yet were beneficial and important 
to the subject races of Eastern Europe. To the heroic people of Monte- 
negro the Treaty of Berlin provided for an accession of territory ; but 
when we came into office no practical progress had been made towards 
handing over to them territory in accordance with that treaty. We, gentle- 
men, did not scruple to determine that we would use the whole influence 
and power of this Empire in concert with the rest of Europe for the 
purpose of securing the fulfilment of that treaty ; and that gallant 
people, after a struggle of 400 years, whom we found with little and 
faint hope of the execution of the provisions that had been made, are 
now, I am happy to say, in possession of a territory which they had a 
right to claim ; and to you, men of Leeds, I am able to say that by 
your conduct at the last election you helped your brethren in their great 
necessity towards the attainment of that reasonable end. Not only the 
people of Montenegro, but the people of Greece had had given to them 



The Work of the Govermnent. 73 

expectations of great advantage. Advantage in what ? Not the ad- 
vantage of an alien domination to be established over people with whom 
they had no sympathy, but the advantage of reunion with their brethren 
in blood and in religion, for centuries subjected to the yoke of servitude, 
but then panting with the hope and relying upon the just expectation 
of at length obtaining relief. And now, gentlemen, what has happened ? 
I rejoice to say that though no progress whatever had been made 18 
months ago in the fulfilment of that ]3urpose, a country famous in 
history, the country of Thessaly, inhabited from end to end by members 
of the Greek race, to which in old times we have owed so much — that 
country of Thessaly has been handed out of servitude into freedom, by 
the influence exerted by the Powers of Europe, to which you have con- 
tributed your full share. And never, gentlemen, in the course of my 
life have I enjoyed a purer pleasure than in witnessing the accomplish- 
ment of that work, the removal of that yoke, the re- establishment of 
that union among Greek jDopulations of different regions, without the 
effusion of one single drop of blood. Nor will I omit to give to the 
Sultan of Turkey just credit for having freely concurred during the 
present year in that transition — a transition not quite accomplished yet 
at every point but so nearly accomplished that I may venture to speak of it 
as being substantially as a thing that has reached its consummation. But, 
gentlemen, I am bound, on the other hand, to say that the Sultan and 
the Government of Turkey know very well upon all occasions with 
whom they have to deal, and when they are aware that those with whom 
they are dealing are in earnest, and mean a thing to be done, they can 
be just as reasonable as other people, a reasonableness that they have 
exhibited upon the present occasion. And you, the men of Leeds, have 
helped them in the work. 

AFGHANISTAN. 

Well, gentlemen, I go to other regions. I go a region inhabited by 
another gallant people, the people of Afghanistan. That people, if they 
were united to us in the bonds of affection, would form a moral barrier 
— supposing a barrier were needed — for our Empire in India against the 
power of Russia and against her aggressions ; and for my part I have 
more faith in moral barriers than I have either in guns and rifles, or in 
mountains and rivers — it would have formed a moral barrier on our 
behalf and for the defence of our great Empire in India and our fulfil- 
ment of the sacred and the noble trust which we have there undertaken, 
not inferior, to say the least, to the barrier which Nature has created 
for us, and which, happily, the folly of man cannot destroy. The 
wisdom of successive Viceroys of India — most of them appointed by 
Liberal Governments, but one of them, and not the least worthy amongst 
them, appointed by our opponents — I mean Lord Mayo — a succession of 
wise Viceroys had endeavoured, by carefully respecting the rights of the 
Afghans, by avoiding every occasion of jealous interference with their 
affairs, by meeting their wishes in a friendly spirit, by endeavouring to 
efface unhappy recollections of our former follies — I fear I might say 
crimes — to create by degrees a kindly feeling between those millions of 
gallant mountaineers and the administrators of the British Empire, and 



74 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

I may say of representatives of British power. Well, gentlemen, about 
three years ago all the work of that wise jjolicy was ruthlessly re- 
versed.^ Again we invaded Afghanistan ; again we established our 
troops in every stronghold of the country. Again we shed the blood of 
their people freely — aye, too freely — over its mountains and its vales, 
and with that blood no small portion of the blood of the gallant soldiers 
of the British and the Indian Empires. And, gentlemen, for what 
X^urpose did we do it 1 — with what effect did we do it ? Simply with the 
effect of converting into enemies those who ought to be our best friends 
— and of destroying the moral barrier between ourselves and the 
Eussian Empire. Ah, gentlemen, painful and sad is the confession 
which that gallant General, Sir Frederick Roberts, has left upon record 
when, in one of his despatches, he told the Government to which he 
wrote : "You must found all your measures on the recollection and 
conviction of the unquestionable fact that you are the objects of the 
bitter and determined hatred of every Afghan." 

And so, gentlemen, we were invited — and without our own concur- 
rence, without the previous knowledge of Parliament, far less of the 
people — we were not only invited but compelled to send 70,000 men 
into Afghanistan, or to the North- West frontier of India, for this insane 
and criminal purpose. One of the first and weightiest duties we found 
imposed upon us was to consider in what way, with due regard to the 
safety of the troops and the safety of all those who might have acted as 
our partisans, we could retrieve and draw back from a fatal position 
which a former Government had caused us to assume. I rejoice to say 
that, in great part, that work is achieved, and that those thousands, with 
the exception of those in one slight and outlying corner of the territory 
imder peculiar circumstances, are withdrawn, and that the Afghan is 
again the master of his own country. If he does not quite know v/hom 
to obey, that is not his fault, but ours. We broke down his Govern- 
ment. ^ We brought down the grey hairs of the old man who peacefully 
ruled in Afghanistan in sorrow to the grave. We said, through the 
mouth of Tory Ministers, that we Avished Afghanistan to be one, to be 
independent, and to be powerful. We made it, instead of one, a collec- 
tion of fragments ; instead of independent, we made it enslaved ; instead 
of powerful, we reduced it to misery and to weakness. Gentlemen, we 
have made at the last the first stage in retracing those fatal steps, and 
we have hoped that by a steady perseverance in a similar policy we may 
at least efface some of the most unhappy, some of the most scandalous 
recollections which, I am' afraid, will remain inscribed upon the page of 
history — happily with many good works on the other side — remain to 
sully the fair fame of England. 

EGYPT. 

Gentlemen, there is another country with regard to which anxiety 
prevails, and with regard to which I can speak, I rejoice to say, 
in a different tone of the proceedings of the Government that went 
before us— I mean the country of Egypt. In Egypt, as you are 
perhaps aware, joint action of England and France is established, 
which, of course, is open to a good deal of difficulty and a good deal of 



The Work of the Government. 75 

objection. The risks of it we are now beginning to experience ; but, at 
the same time, I rejoice to say, and I am glad that those who went 
before us should have the full credit of their act, that intervention of 
England and France has been beneficial to the people of Egypt. I have 
no doubt that not only the finance of Egypt, which was in confusion, 
has been brought to order, but that the peasantry of Egypt, an easily 
governed, well-conducted peasantry, have had a great mitigation intro- 
duced through European interference into what was a system of serious 
and grievous oppression. Now, gentlemen, with regard to Egypt I will 
not say more than this, that our policy in that country will be guided 
by the considerations which, as I rather think, you will approve. We 
shall endeavour to act in strict concert with the allied and friendly 
Government of France, and we have not the least reason to doubt, from 
all that has hitherto taken place, that we shall be able there to maintain 
a thoroughly united action. We shall endeaA^our to prevent the growth 
of any difficulties between Egypt and the Sultan of Turkey, and in that 
aim, I trust and I hope, we shall also succeed. We shall not, unless it 
be under some unforeseen necessit_y, seek to extend the limits of our 
interference, because, gentlemen, in every country what we wish 
earnestly is this, that its affairs shall be managed so far as may be by 
the free action and judgment of the inhabitants themselves. But in all 
that we do there we shall proceed, not for dynastic purposes, not for 
selfish views, not, gentlemen — I will fairly tell you — by any endeavour 
to make your interests paramount in the Government of Egypt as 
compared with the interests of the Egyptian people, but by striving to 
secure those ends which are for the benefit of the country, knowing as 
we do that we shall thereby best meet your wishes, best establish and 
confirm the character of this Empire in the civilised world, and best 
minister to the ultimate and real promotion of all its own highest 
interests. 

SOUTH AFEICA, 

I wish, gentlemen, that I could in the topic I am now approaching — 
and it is the last on which I shall have seriously to detain you — I could 
continue those tones of satisfaction with which I record the good results 
of the policy of the late Government in Egypt. But I must now pass 
to the affairs of South Africa. And there, gentlemen, when we acceded 
to power, what did we find ? We found that a bloody war with the 
Zulu nation was just concluded with heavy charge and with a great 
effusion of blood to ourselves, with the painful recollection — I am sorry 
to say, so far as our convictions are concerned — that that war was a 
causeless war, and being a causeless war, left upon us, as is left upon 
all who make causeless wars, the trace and the stain of bloodguiltiness. 
We found another war proceeding between a native race, the Basutos, 
and the Government of the Cape. We found a greater difficulty still — 
for that Basuto war has hajDpily been brought to a close— in the condition 
of things that had been established by the late proceedings in the terri- 
tory known as the Transvaal. A free population of a race not less 
tenacious than our own, of abundant courage and resolution, united in a 
form of Republican Government, had by this gratuitous interference of 



76 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

tlie British Government, been annexed, as it was called, to the British 
Empire. This, gentlemen, was to us a source of great difficulty. The 
assurances sent to us from every official quarter in South Africa were 
that since the annexation had taken place the Dutch population were 
rapidly becoming reconciled to it, and that when they knew it would be 
maintained, and that they would be fairly treated under it, all difficul- 
ties would disappear. 

It was impossible for us, gentlemen, to ascertain in a day the real 
state of things. It was our duty to avoid, wherever we could avoid it, 
the disturbance of the great acts of policy performed by our predecessors. 
But, as you know, the Dutch population almost unanimously rose in 
arms to vindicate its freedom and its independence, and when that had 
taken place we said we were willing to proceed with them in peaceful 
modes, but that we could not allow the affairs of that or any country for 
which we had become responsible to be settled by the action of mere 
force. The leaders of the Dutch replied that they were willing — so 
confident were they of the goodness of their cause— that a Commission 
should be appointed by the Crown to inquire into the facts, and they 
expressed the utmost confidence that the Boers would abide by the 
result of the deliberations of that Commission. Gentlemen, we thought 
that a reasonable offer. In the meantime unfortunate military opera- 
tions had been attempted with insufficient means, and blood had been 
shed without the attainment of success. There were those who said 
that we ought to have avenged those consequences of our own miscalcu- 
lations upon the Boers before proceeding to negotiate with them. Such, 
gentlemen, was not our conviction. We thought that to act upon such 
a course would be to act on a principle of shame both false and cowardly. 
We had provided ample means for vindicating the authority of the 
Crown, and having provided that sufficient force we determined at once 
to enter, on the invitation of the Boers, on friendly negotiations. 

You are aware that very able men, able commanders and able nego- 
tiators on the part of the Boers, concurred with our Commissioners in 
framing a Convention. Under that Convention we felt it our duty to 
take the best securities in our power for the welfare of those native 
tribes, counted by hundreds of thousands, who inhabited the Transvaal 
and towards whom we could not forget the responsibilities we had 
assumed. We provided that power should be retained for that purpose. 
We provided that the Crown should retain prerogatives, under the 
name of suzerainty for the purpose of preventing the introduction of 
foreign embarrassments into South Africa, and we consented freely that 
subject to these conditions and to certain minor conditions in relation to 
money matters with which I need not trouble you, the Boers of the 
Transvaal should in all other respects enjoy perfect self-government and 
practical freedom and independence. We had the assurance of those 
who had led the Boers to military success, and of those who were the 
trusted agents for the guardianship of their civil interests, that the 
representative assembly, which is called the Volksraad, would agree to 
these conditions. The Volksraad has met ; it has debated the conditions ; 
objections have been raised ; no motion adverse to the Convention has 
been made ; but down to the present moment its ratification, has not 



The Work of the Government. 77 

taken place, and requests have been made to us that we will reopen the 
consideration of subjects which we believed had been closed. 

I must now speak to you in free, but I trust clear, words. There 
might in that Convention be points capable of amendment ; there may 
be matters of detail and trivial matters, and of those I do not speak. 
When we come to obtain the light of experience, it may be found that 
on one point or another amended provision might be made, and it is 
only from experience that such light can be obtained. We have great 
duties to perform. We made large concessions, and you know how we 
have been censured and vituperated for those concessions ; you know, 
and now, perhaps, you can understand with how little cause it was that 
we were assailed in Parliament, and that it has been sought to drive us 
from office on account of the liberal terms which we granted to the 
Boers. You may now, perhaps, better understand that what we 
attempted was to do equal justice, and in attempting to grant that 
justice to the Dutch populations which we thought our predecessors had 
withheld, we never for a moment forgot what was due to other conside- 
rations, to the rights of the native tribes, and to the general peace of 
South Africa. And, gentlemen, those men are mistaken, if such there 
be, who judge that our liberal concessions were the effect of weakness 
or timidity, and who think because we granted much, it was only to 
encourage them to ask for more. I know not, gentlemen, what is to 
happen. I hope the Convention may shortly be ratified. But this I 
can tell you, that as we have not been afraid of reproach at home, as we 
have not been afraid of calumny in the Colonies, on account of the 
over-indulgence which, as was said, we extended to the Boers of the 
Transvaal, so in what may yet remain to be done we shall recollect, and 
faithfully maintain, the interests of the numerous and extended native 
population, and we shall be not less faithful to the dignity of this great 
Empire in the conduct of all our proceedings. 

OPPOSED TO IMPERIALISM BUT DEVOTED TO THE EMPIRE. 

I have only, gentlemen, a few words to say. It is a common reproach 
against us, the Liberals of England, that we are indifferent to the great- 
ness of the Empire. One thing I w^ill say : I hope the Liberals of 
England will never seek to consolidate the Empire by ministering to the 
interests of class instead of the public. And I hope they will never 
seek to extend the Empire by either violently wresting, or fraudulently 
obtaining the territories of other people. We are supposed by many to 
be the enemies of Turkey, because we have endeavoured to exact from 
her what we thought was just. But I tell you plainly it is my belief 
that the Sultan of Turkey has a confidence in us that he had not in our 
predecessors, because he knows right well that we do not want to 
establish our single power of interference and disturbance betAveen him 
and his subjects, but only to proceed in these matters by the general 
approval of Europe, and the civilised world ; and because he also knows 
that we do not want to appropriate any more of those islands which 
form an important part of his dominion. But, gentlemen, while I accord 
to our political opponents the full credit of a conscientious desire to 
inaintairi. the glor^ of this Empire, I will say that if there i§ to be a 



78 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, 31. P. 

controversy upon the subject, if we are called to descend into the arena, 
and to argue the matter here or elsewhere, I say it is Liberal, and not 
Conservative policy which has made England respected, and has made 
England strong. Why, gentlemen, if the old Tory policy of governing 
the Colonies in Downing Street had been maintained where would 
those Colonies noAV have been ? They v/ould have been by this time 
groups of independent States, But Liberal policy freely granted to the 
colonists, in spite of Tory censure, the very same rights that we claim 
for ourselves in the management of our affairs, and the consequence is 
that the inhabitants of those Colonies are closely and cordially attached 
to the name and to the throne of this countrj^, and that perhaps if a day 
of difficulty and danger should arise — which God forl3id — from their 
affection we may obtain assistance and advantage that compulsion never 
would have wrung from them, and may find that all portions of the 
British Empire have one common heart, beating with one common 
pulsation, and equally devoted to the honour and interests of their 
common country. 

And so it is, gentlemen, with regard to foreign countries. We believe 
and are sure that the way to make England great in the estimation of 
foreign countries is to let it be known by every one of them that England 
desires above all things to be just — and will not seek to impose upon 
them any laws of action, or any principles for the interpretation of their 
conduct except those to which she herself submits. 

Lastly, gentlemen, as regards the policy at home, though some things 
are to be tolerated and endured in politics — it is good for us all to 
tolerate and endure them ; but there are some things which, when I hear 
them, are iT.tlier too much — I do think it a little too much when I hear 
described the great power of England, the industry of England, the 
trade of England, the wealth of England, the population of England, 
and when it is said that to all these matters the Liberals are perfectly 
indifferent, and that the only hope of maintaining them depends upon 
having a Conservative Government jn office. I won't take you again 
across the seas ; but I ask you, what are the ^proceedings which have 
made these countries great and strong at home, have increased your 
population, have multiplied your wealth, have improved your moral 
condition, have spread education ? To whom are those things owing ? 
To greater men and better men than you see before you. Who 
introduced and carried the Eeforni Act of 1832 ? Unless I have read 
history topsy-turvey, that was not the act of the Tories. It is true that 
Tory statesmen carried Catholic Emancipation, but they carried it by 
Liberal votes, in despite of Tories. It is true tliat a Tory statesman 
repealed the Corn Laws, but for repealing them he Avas himself banished 
— expelled from the Tory ranks, and other Tories, of a different creed, 
and a different kidney, took his place, renouncing his aid, reviling his 
name ; and these are the Tories that now, by a continuous succession — 
not the Tories of Sir Eobert Peel, and of the Duke of Wellington, bust, 
as I have said, of another origin and another breed altogether — demand 
your support. The cruel criminal code of England was abolished. That 
was the work of Liberals, and not of Tories. The scheme of national 
education was conceived and established — that was the work of Liberals 



National Expenditure. 79 

rather than of Tories. You may go through, gentlemen, the whole list 
of the beneficial laws by which it is that we have become, instead of a 
disunited and comparatively feeble, a united and a strong community, 
and you will find that more tlian nme-tenths of those laws have been 
passed by the Liberal party, and that as to the other tenth, where it has 
been passed by Tories, it has generally been passed by Tories, who, on 
account of passing them, were disowned by the other Tories. 

And so, gentlemen, I say that while we are opposed to Imperialism, 
we are devoted to the Empire, and we who are now in Government as 
your agents will, to the best and utmost and latest of our power, whilst 
studying peace with all the world, endeavour to persuade men into 
observance of the laws of justice and equality. "We shall never forgot 
what is due to the dignity of the throne of Queen Victoria. And neither 
in east nor west, neither in north nor south, shall it be said truly of us 
that the conce?sions which we make are concessions wrung from fear, 
nor shall there be a doubt of our determination, to the best of our 
ability, to maintain the laws at home, and the dignity of the Empire 
throughout the world. 



NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. 

{IN TEE HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 6, 1883.) 

I THINK that, whatever be the view taken by any member of this 
House of the motion which is before us, there will be a general admis- 
sion that the task assumed by my lion, friends has been performed by 
them with great ability, and although I am very far from being prepared 
to subscribe to all that both or either of them may have said,- there is 
much in which I heartily concur, and many statements and ideas have 
proceeded from them which will tend to refresh and invigorate the 
public mind on this important subject, and to bring into lively and 
practical operation thoughts which for long periods are apt to lie dor- 
mant. I feel, therefore, that it is due alike to them and to the House 
that I should lose no time in stating to the House the estimate that we 
form of the motion that has been made, the course which we propose to 
take, and the nature and extent of the results which we anticipate from 
it, in case it should be carried. 

I will make some very brief observations at the beginning upon two or 
three remarks which fell from my hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who 
proposed the resolution, in some of which I was personally concerned. My 
hon. friend appeared to anticipate that, inasmuch as his motion, as he con- 
sidered, fell under the title of abstract resolution, and as he had frequently 



80 Speeclies of Right lion. William Eiccirt Gladstone, M.P, 

Jieard objections taken from persons standing at this box to abstract re- 
solutions, he must expect that a similar course would be taken to-day. 
There is however, a good deal of ambiguity about the use of the phrase 
abstract resolution. I for my part have often objected to abstract reso- 
lutions, but I draw a distinction both according to the circumstances in 
which they are moved and the subject matter. Very generally it is 
objectionable to move abstract resolutions on subjects which ought to be 
put forward by legislation unless they be at once followed by practical 
proposals. But I make this admission, that with regard to all questions 
of hnance my hon. friend had no course if he were to proceed at all but 
to proceed by abstract resolution, and no doubt, sir, when objection is 
taken to abstract resolutions, it is taken upon this ground, that it often 
happens that, after the declaration of a principle, the House feels that it 
has done something when it has really done nothing ; and allows the 
subject matter to go to sleep in such a way that the ultimate settlement 
is not forwarded, but impeded by the very cheap assertion of public 
faith made by the abstract resolution. But I understand my hon. friend 
to make this proposal in the sense of pledging the Government to some- 
thing of a practical character in undertaking a real and close view of the 
expenditure of the country. My hon. friend said that all in this House 
were to blame. Both parties were to blame — he generously said he was 
himself to blame, and he took more upon himself than some of those who 
sat behind him appeared prepared to accept. But, sir, my hon. friend, in 
my opinion, will never have done full justice to the case until he recog- 
nises this fact, that if there is an indifference to the great question of 
public expenditure in recent times, that is neither exclusively due to 
Governments, nor to parties, nor to Parliaments, but to the public of 
this country also. The nation itself has been far less alive to the subject 
of economy in the administration of its affairs than used to be the case 
in former times, and this House so essentially represents the public feel- 
ing that it has fallen short in this duty, as it could never have fallen 
short if there had not been on the part of the public an inadequate 
appreciation of the subject. My hon, friend urges what took place in 
1870 when, as he stated, a Vote of Credit was proposed by me, and he 
said he was one of the gentlemen who voted against it. If he was one 
of those gentlemen who voted against it, that, in my opinion, is a clear 
and sufficient proof that the general sense of the House and of the 
country lay the other way. 

As I have referred to the subject of what took place in 1870, I must 
demur to the censure bestowed by my hon. friend on the measures of 
that year. He saj^s that the time when two great military Powers were 
about to exhaust each other in the efforts of a frightful war was the very 
time when it would have been perfectly safe for us to hold our hand and 
to keep down our expenditure. I think my hon. friend's recollection 
has not served him quite faithfully on this occasion. It was not from 
any apprehension on account of that war or from an idle idea that it was 
our duty to interfere in every Continental contest, that the measure was 
then proposed to the House in reference to our military establishments. 
It was because in the judgment of the Government and of the country a 
serious danger appeared to threaten the prosperity of a small but free 



National Expenditure. 81 

neighbour in whose welfare the peoiDle of this country feel the deepest 
interest. It was to make provision, and, as I believe, an effectual though 
a moderate provision, against danger in that quarter that the measure 
was proposed to which my hon. friend has referred, and which he says 
Jie opposed in a minority of only seven members. I find in the speech 
cf my hon. friend that which I admit is almost absolutely incidental to 
a speech of such a nature. In discussing and bringing to question the 
ai:gmentation of public expenditure it is hardly possible that my hon. 
friend should administer complete justice as between expenditure and 
the purposes to which it was applied. He says with perfect truth that 
in 1870-1 considerable augmentations were made in the military esti- 
mate ; but while I am by no means prejudicing the question whether 
we have been as strict in military economy as we might have been, I 
would call upon him to admit that as regards a portion of the increase 
of charge, we have at all events had value for our money. My hon. 
friend is one of those who do not approve the military operations of last 
year, but let him consider the manner in which they were carried into 
effect, and the promptitude — and promptitude in war means cheapness — 
with which the whole of those operations were carried through ; and my 
hon. friend must know that if the same circumstances had occurred 
twenty or thirty years ago, and that if we had had the army and the 
army establishments of 1853 instead of those of 1882, it would have 
been impossible for us, in anything like the same space of time or with 
the same decision and success, to put our hand to the execution of a 
work which we deemed to be imperative in point of principle, and 
necessary for the security of the peace of Europe. No doubt the opera- 
tion proposed by us in 1870-1 was an operation of immense responsi- 
bility — I mean the abolition of purchase — but it was one which gave us 
a truly national army, and I believe the country has recognised that the 
change was worth what it cost. 

My hon. friend will perhaps allow me to refer to the mention he has 
made of the case of 1857. He states that at that time a resolution of 
this nature was made in the House of Commons, and that it was made 
by myself. It is quite true. I thought then, as I think now, that there 
was good reason why the motion should be made, and why it should be 
made by myself. It was desirable that it should be made, because the 
period preceding the Crimean War was the turning point in regard to 
expenditure, and the reason why I felt it incumbent upon me to make 
the motion was that as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853 I had indi- 
cated to the House how, on the scale of expenditure which then pre- 
vailed, the income-tax might be reduced at an early date. On the scale 
of expenditure which prevailed in 1857 that appeared to be impossible, 
and I felt it my duty to bring to issue the question whether the House 
of Commons desired still to hold out to the country the expectation of 
reducing the income-tax. My hon. friend has described the Govern- 
ment of 1871 as having at that time abandoned the ideas of economy 
with which it came into office, and which unquestionably I for one had 
in 1868 loudly professed before the country. I would point out, how- 
ever, to my hon. friend that the net amount we spent on the army and 



82 Si:)eeclies of Right Hon. William Eiuart Gladstone, M.P. 

navy in 1873-4 was ^22,800,000, which was ^1,800,000 lower than the 
amount spent in 1868-9. 

And now I come to the motion of my hon. friend. I at once admit 
that the check possessed by economical-minded members of Parliament 
over the proposals of the Government, through motions to be made ir. 
Committee of Supply, although it is a valuable and absolutely necessary 
step, is nevertheless imperfect. It is the only check that can be brought 
into constant operation, but it is perfectly right that from time to time 
the House of Commons should raise itself to efforts of a different charac- 
ter, and therefore that motions of this kind should be made. It is, 
indeed, most desirable that when a motion of this kind is made we 
should remember that it is a subject not to be trifled with, and that the 
words of the motion, if we adopt them, are v/ords which carry a mean- 
ing. It may not be in our power to assure ourselves of any splendid 
results, but we ought to feel that if a motion such as this is to be adopted 
it is a solemn pledge to a serious effort, and that we must not shrink 
from any anxiety which the endeavour to redeem that pledge may be 
found to involve. My hon. friend in one portion of his speech quoted 
some cautionary words of mine about efficiency to which I entirely 
adhere. He has himself put in his motion a very just and a very 
judicious limitation. He desires to pledge the House to an expression of 
its opinion that the present amount of the national expenditure demands 
the earnest and immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, 
with a view of effecting such a reduction as may be consistent with the 
efficiency of the public service. It is impossible for the Government to 
object to a motion of that kind. The only question in our mind is 
whether the occasion of its being proposed is proper. "We are not pre- 
pared to assert that it is not proper. A considerable interval has passed 
since the House was invited to make any attempt of this kind. There 
was, indeed, an attempt of the sort in 1873, but that so soon came to an 
end, in consequence of and in connection with the termination of the 
Government that had sanctioned it, that I consider that as hardly enter- 
ing into the history of the case. I must go back as far as 1847 before 
we arrive at a x^eriod when the House made a serious effort on this sub- 
lect. The Government, therefore, considering the principle, are prepared 
to accept the motion of my hon. friend. At the same time, the House 
must perfectly understand what we anticipate from it. Our acceptance 
implies that the Government will do its best to make a careful review 
of the several branches of the public expenditure ; but we also look 
upon the motion and find much of. its value in this — that it pledges the 
House also to take a certain course. I think it means that the House 
v.'ill assist the Government and endeavour to strengthen its hands, and 
will show a general disposition, not only to discourage, but to rather 
discountenance whatever efforts may tend in the opposite direction. All 
that we expect from the House in the event of the adoption of the 
motion, and there is one mode in which the House is accustomed to act, 
so important, although I do not venture to announce a positive decision 
of the Government upon it, yet I wish to mention it — the interference 
of the House of Commons, not only in the way of checking the items of 
expenditure, as they are proposed from year to year, but in the way of 



National Expenditure. 83 

general review — as tlioroughly constitutional, and as supported amply 
\by precedent in other times ; and those times are not exclusively con- 
ftned to the period of tlie reformed Parliament. On the contrary, the 
two occasions which alone I will quote are anterior to the reform of 
1832. In 1817 there was a step of this kind taken, and it was followed 
up by a similar motion in 1819. A committee was appointed under 
the Government of Lord Liverpool for the purpose of making a general 
review of the public expenditure. Again, in the year 1828, a similar 
committee Vv^as appointed, and I cannot refer to that period without 
saying what I think justice demands from me — that although the 
greatest efforts for economy have been made since the reform of 1832, 
yet undoubtedly the Government of the Duke of Wellington, I believe, 
on principle, and from personal convictions of many of its leading mem- 
bers, was, and proved itself in intention — conscientious intention — an 
economical Government. That was in 1828 : and again, in 1847, Lord 
Eussell assented to the appointmsnt of a select committee. I hnve 
before me the terms in which those select committees were appointed. 
I need not trouble the House by reading over the formal references that 
were made. What I say is that they were large and liberal in their 
. terms, and that they opened up to the fall consideration of the House 
the whole arrangements of the public expenditure, and that the only 
limitation they imposed was that which my lion, friend has substanti- 
ally introduced. 

I do not at present propose to appoint one committee or more than 
one committee of this kind, but we consider it our duty to consider tliat 
matter very seriously ; and if we see a prospect of advantage from the 
appointment of that committee, then, in a short time, with a general 
concurrence of opinion — that would be essential — we should make a 
proposal to that effect. There is one word which I ought to say. If we 
ask the House to appoint such committee or committees, I need not say 
that we shall be appointing them at a period when the voting of the 
estimates has already begun. Therefore, the committee would not be 
appointed to consider the estimates of the year in particular — they would 
not be excluded — but upon the expenditure in general. I am very 
desirous to give my own view of the case in order that there may not go 
abroad any exaggerated ideas upon the subject. 

1840 AND 1832-3. 

My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his excellent 
speech last night entered upon various comparisons. What I wish to 
do is to go further back. I want to go back into the economical period 
of British administration, and I wish to choose for that purpose the 
year 1840. I do it for several reasons. There can arise here no question 
between one party and another. The year 1840 like 1882, was a j-ear 
of Liberal administration. Again, as I have said, it is a year taken 
from a period of strict notions of economy professed on both sides of the 
House, and I think the most rigid economist, if he looks back and 
examines the proceedings of Parliament between 1830 and 1852, will 
have very little to desire. The Governments never bore hardly on 
individuals, and they upheld public faith and honour, yet they never 



84 Speeches of Right Hon, William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

missed an opportunity of providing for tlie present and prospective 
reduction of the charges. Therefore, by taking the period of 1840 I 
take the period most suitable for comparison, and, further, it is the 
earliest year embraced in those admirable 15 years' summaries by means 
of which every member of the House has an opportunity of examining 
in great detail the particulars of public revenue and expenditure. I 
begin by taking the expenditure of that year and comparing it with that 
of 1882 — 83 ; but the result which appears to arise will be very con- 
siderably modified by necessary deductions. In 1840 the gross charge 
of the country was £53,244,000 ; in 1882—83 it was i;88,906,000 which 
presents an enormous increase. But a comparison so stated would be 
most fallacious, and I must try to make it a trustworthy comparison. 
The first thing to be done is to look to the cost of collection. That is 
not properly expenditure out of the taxes, but necessary charges. The 
cost of collection of the public revenue in 1840 was J4,l 15,000, and the 
deduction of that sum reduces the, gross expenditure to ^49,129,000. 
The cost in 1882 was £8,928,000, and the deduction of that sum reduces 
the expenditure to £79,978,000. Then, sir, I think it is also convenient 
that the special war charges of the year should be deducted. They form 
no part of the general system ; in 1840 the special war charges on 
account of China and Canada were £703,000. In 1882, for the Egyptian 
War, the special charges were £3,896,000. Applying these figures, we 
find the expenditure for 1840, £48,426,000, and for 1882, £76,082,000, 
so that the enormous gap noticed at first becomes a little narrower. 
Then, sir, it is most important to make another deduction, and that is a 
deduction for the sum paid in the reduction of the debt. Unfortu- 
nately, strictly as the principle of economy Avas applied in 1840, another 
principle which I hold to be still more important — namely, the equali- 
sation of the revenue charge — was not tenaciously upheld in that period, 
and the consequence was that the operations for the reduction of the 
debt were then conducted upon a very small scale. The amount that 
went to the reduction of the debt in 1840 was only £531,000. Out of 
the revenue of the year 1882 the sum applied in reduction of the debt 
was £7,100,000. I am one of those who hold that in all circumstances 
the reduction of debt ought to be prosecuted, and whatever authorities 
may be quoted, and I am aware that some may be quoted, to represent 
the National Debt as a flea-bite, I close my eyes against the charm of 
all charmers charm they never so wisely ; and I trust that no Govern- 
ment will ever relax in any way its operations in the direction of the 
reduction of the debt. 

It is quite obvious, if we are going to compare the expenditure of two 
particular periods, that we must not take into account that portion of 
the expenditure which is merely devoted to relief from obligations ; and 
if we act on this very proper principle we shall find that the expendi- 
ture of the year 1840 falls to £47,895,000, and that of 1882 to £68,982,000; 
we may call them £48,000,000 and £69,000,000 respectively ; that is an 
increase of 44 per cent. But there is one other deduction which has 
been named to-night that we must also take into account, and that is tbe 
enormous grants made in aid of local taxation. On the whole, I was 
very well satisfied with the manner in which this subject w^s discussed 



National Expenditure. 85 

by my hon. friend the seconder of the motion, for he admitted that the 
incidence of local taxation required the amending hand of Parliament, 
while he pointed out the danger that beset our path in regard to the 
sources of labour and capital respectively from which the different funds 
are derived that are available for local and Imperial taxation, and he re- 
ferred to the effort first made by my right hon. friend the Member for 
Ripen to establish the proper method of proceeding, which is this : 
First, fix in your own mind how much a head ought to be given to local 
taxation, but give it in a proper manner by the allocation of taxes ; give 
it in a manner which will not take funds derived from labour to be 
applied to the relief of property. Whatever be done, let it be a straight- 
forward and above-board proceeding, and then, in my opinion, the effect 
^vill be on the one hand to secure you against the serious political 
dangers incident to the present method of making grants in aid, while 
on the other hand the grants themselves will go further than they now 
do in relief of the ratepayers. In 1842 — I cannot get the amount for 
1840 or 1841 — the whole amount of local grants was ^620,000 ; in fact, 
the system was then in its infancy ; but in 1882 I believe the amount 
expended was fully six millions of money — that is to say, it was multi- 
plied nearly tenfold during those 40 years. Deducting these sums again 
I reduce the expenditure of 1840 to ^47,275,000, and that of 1882 to 
^62,955,000. Now that, I believe, is a fair and trustworthy comparison, 
and the effect of it is to show that the total increase of charges within 
that period of forty-two years was ,£15,608,000, or nearly 34 per cent. 
I do not say that this is normal or just. My belief is that some portion 
of this money might have been saved, and I hope that we may be able 
to save a sensible, if not a large, portion of it ; but while I admit that 
there is an undeniable increase of about 34 per cent,, it maybe well to 
recollect that in Great Britain, during the same period, the population 
of the country has increased by 65 per cent., and the taxable revenue of 
the country has increased from £251,000,000 in 1840 to £540,000,000 in 
1882, or by about 115 per cent. 

That is not stated by me with any other view than the simple pur- 
pose of reducing the case to the exact proportions of the truth. I do 
not in the least degree imply that the question raised by my hon. friend 
is not very grave and serious. I thank him for the effort he has made, 
and I promise him that the Government, in accepting his motion, will 
accept it with the fullest intention to do all they can in furtherance 
of his purpose ; but I must add that the resources of every Government 
are limited, and that the real and principal effect of its best exertions 
must depend on the effective support which it hopes to receive from 
the vast power and authority of the House of Commons. 



86 S2yeeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

THE BKADLAUGH QUESTION. . 

{IJSf THE SOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 26, 1883.) 

Strictly speaking, it is no pcirfc of my duty to do more than follow, 
as well as I can, the arguments which have been used against this Bill (the 
Oaths Bill). It appears to me, however, that while the real issue to be 
dealt with is not a very wide one, the debate has been extraordinarily pro- 
longed by the introduction into it of extraneous matter. The debate has 
undoubtedly been an animated one. On the other side of the House all 
that sarcasm and invective can do, especially by assaults upon the 
Government, involving lengthened details of its iniquitous proceedings, 
has been called into requisition, I will not sa}^ for the purpose, but at all 
events with the effect of very greatly widening the field of contention, 
without, I think, having the compensating etfect of clearing the judg- 
ment of lion, members. The hon. member who has just sat down has 
made a most temperate speech, and consequently it was much less 
animated than many other of the speeches that have fallen from hon. 
members opposite on this question. I may say, however, that I do not 
defend my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I leave him 
subject to the whole weight of the censure which has been pronounced 
by the hon. member, although, it being an argumentative censure, it 
might, perhaps, have not been difficult to defend the noble and learned 
lord. The hon. member has said but two things that really bear upon 
the question at issue, or which could possibly be held to be in the nature 
of an argument against the Bill. One is that the petitions show that 
the voice of the nation is against the Bill, and the other is that by the 
law at this moment an atheist cannot sit in this House. Of course I do 
not speak of persons whose opinions are concealed. On that point, then, 
my contention is exactly the reverse of the hon, member's. I will not 
say what is the intention of the law, because with that I have nothing 
to do ; but I say that there is no legislative power whatever that can 
j)revent atheists duly elected from sitting in this House. And I think, 
moreover, that the hon, member himself will see that it was mainly 
through an accident that the disclosure of his religious opinions effected 
Mr. Bradlaugh's exclusion from this House. What I am prepared to 
maintain is this — that even where a man's atheism is notorious, and 
wdiere it has been published in the newspapers, there is no power, where 
he has been duly elected, that can exclude him if he chooses — whether 
well advised or ill advised is not the question — to take the oath. 

Many matters have been introduced into this debate, some of which it 
will be my duty to notice. In the first place, it has been said that this Bill 
ought to have been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and the Govern- 
ment have been complained of for nothaving givenit aplacein thatsx^eech. 
In my view, however, this was a Bill which ought not to have been men- 
tioned in the Queen's Speech. It is the duty of the Government, before 



The Bradlaugh Question. 87 



the}^ advise Her Majesty as to her Speech, to make choice, according to 
the legislative requirements of the country, of certain measures which 
they think it is within the power of the House of Commons and the 
most for the interest of the country to deal with ; and they should 
make this choice upon grounds of broad and general interest. This 
Bill, however, is one which comes within quite a different category. 
The noble lord, the Secretary for War, suggested, with perfect truth, 
I think, that this was not a question to which, upon grounds of legis- 
lative urgency, it would have been our duty to give precedence oyer 
tlie multitude of those proposed to be dealt with by the measures in- 
dicated in the Queen's Speech. This measure is of a totally different 
character from those. With regard to it, it was our duty to consider 
what was the position of the House of Commons, just as last year it 
became our duty to consider the position of the House with regard 
to the rules of procedure. Yfe thought that it did appertain both to the 
dignity of the House of Commons and to the interests of the country 
that this painful controversy, which has existed for so long, should be 
brought to a close, and that there should be no longer the tempta- 
■fion which has existed in this House to deal with matters strictly 
judicial in a temper and with indications not always presenting the 
best features of the judicial character. We thought that such scenes 
as have been witnessed here, when the dignity of the House and the 
directions of the House have had to be supported by physical force, 
ought not to be repeated, especially when we had reason to believe 
that increased pain and increased scandal might attend their repetition. 
It was therefore upon the ground especial to the position of the House 
of Commons in this matter that we thought that this question was 
entitled to take precedence of certain other measures, and to be _a 
primary one in. reference to the procedure of this House, although it 
might be secondary in point of dignity as far as the order of legis- 
lation was concerned. I may perhaps just remind the House that a 
precisely similar course to that which we have adopted in this case 
was followed in 1854. Lord John Russell, who was then the leader 
of this House on behalf of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, intro- 
duced a Bill for altering the Parliamentary Oaths Act, with a view 
to the further relief of the Roman Catholics and to the general simpli- 
fication of the oath. That Bill was of much wider scope than the 
present measure, because it went to recast the law with regard to the 
duties of hon. members generally, and it corresponded in substance 
with the Act on the subject that wsls subsequently passed in 1886, and yet 
that Bill was never mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in 1854. 

I am afraid that after what we have heard from some hon. gentlemen 
opposite, and especisally from the right hon. gentleman the late Home 
Secretary (Sir R. Cross), I shall make but a dull, unexciting, and un- 
interesting speech, because I do not intend to accuse anybody of 
anything. Neither can I refer to all the numerous points in the 
attack which the right hon. gentleman made upon the Government. 
I must, however, refer to one single point in that attack. The 
right hon. gentleman said that our determination to take the retro- 
spective action, which we proposed to include in it in 1880, out of the 



88 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.F. 

Bill was " a despicable trick." Let me explain how tliat came to pass. 
In 1880 the law had never been determined on the question of the 
optional right of the hon. member for Northampton to affirm, and con- 
sequently Mr. Bradlaugh had been returned by his constituency without 
any knowledge on their part that he was precluded from taking his seat 
in this House. That being so, when we thought it expedient to ask the 
House to change the existing law, we thought it right also that that 
change should be made retrospective, so that the constituency which 
had committed no offence against the known law might not suffer, and 
that it should be given the benefit of its election. The case now, how- 
ever, stands on a very different footing, because the law has since been 
declared, and the constituency has again returned Mr. Bradlaugh, this 
time with a full knowledge of what the law is, and therefore it is that 
we do not now ask the House to make the present Bill retrospective in 
its action. Thus we propose to deal with the warned constituency in a 
different way from what we should have dealt with the unwarned con- 
stituency.* It seems to me an extraordinary thing to say that if the 
Government upon a full consideration of the different bearings of a 
point of that kind, sees cause to come to a certain conclusion, it is " a 
despicable trick." Is the conclusion a right one or a wrong one ? The 
right hon. gentleman will not say the conclusion is a wrong one. I 
want to know what title he has to characterise it in his moderate lan- 
guage as " a despicable trick." The ground upon which we have made, 
or propose to make, an alteration in the Bill is the ground which I have 
stated. 

But then it is said you ought not to alter the law for the sake 
of one person. That is a favourite argument. But it so happens that 
these laws are commonly altered for the sake of one person. It is in 
the case of some one person that the question is raised and the matter 
brought to an issue. "Was not the case of O'Connell the case of one 
person ? I say, sir, that upon the parliamentary history of the question 
there is nothing more clear or better known than this — that it was the 
election of O'Connell for the county of Clare that brought the Roman 
Catholic question tp an issue. Now the allegation is not that Mr. Brad- 
laugh had nobody behind him, but that his is the sole case presented. 
Certainly I must say that this is a curious objection to proceed from the 
party opposite, because the party opposite has had to deal with the 
question of the removal of religious disabilities. After having stoutly 
opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament, upon principles quite as 
high and for motives quite as conscientious as those upon which they 
are now acting, when they came into office they introduced a Bill for 

* Later in the evening Mr. Gladstone made the following statement : — I wish 
to make an observation. I stated inaccurately to the House a matter I am anxious 
to set right. I was under the belief that the Bill introduced by my hon. and learned 
friend the Attorney-General was introduced before the re-election of Mr. Bradlaugh. 
I find that it was after his re-election ; consequently the only explanation I have 
to give now in lieu of what I said before is that upon full consideration of the rights 
of the case we think the Bill ought not to be retrospective, especially as the prece- 
dent of Mr. O'Connell and the principles applicable to the case recommend it as our 
duty to propose a non-retrospectiye measure. 



The Bradlaiigh Question. 89 

the relief of the Jews. How does that Bill run ? In this precise form. 
It makes provision for altering the law and rules of this House of Par- 
liament upon the presentation of one person. I will not read the whole 
clause, but it runs thus : " When it shall appear to either House of 
Parliament that a person " — a 'person — " is prevented from taking his 
seat," by the then condition of the law, " such House may resolve that 
thenceforth any person " may come in and take his seat, upon the con- 
ditions therein specified. So that the fixing of the law was thereby 
committed to each House, and it was deliberately arranged by the action 
of a Government representing gentlemen opposite that when one Jew 
was found to be excluded by the state of the law, as it then was, this 
House should once for all, if it thought fit, admit that Jew and every 
other Jew who should apply to be admitted. Now we are asked what 
is to be done about the peers, about aliens, about felons. I am not sure 
whether that objection did not proceed from some legal authority. It 
is said that if we pass this Bill we shall be placed in a difficult position 
\\dth aliens, felons, and peers. The case of the clergyman I put upon 
an entirely different footing. It is thought to be a matter of very high 
duty, or of rigid constitutional principle, to exclude clergymen from 
this House ; but I consider it is a matter exceedingly open to discussion, 
and to involve no constitutional question at all. With regard to peers 
(though I am sorry to place peers in such company), aliens and felons, 
their disqualifications rest upon the intelligible and well-understood 
principles of the common law of England. But the disqualification of 
an unbeliever rests upon nothing of the sort. I think my hon, and 
learned friend the other night distinctly demonstrated that by the 
common law of England there was no disqualification of this character. 
It is commonly said that Christianity is part of the common law. 
But can that statement be taken in the sense that if a man is not a 
Christian, he is an offender against the common law ? That would be 
an extraordinary mode of applying the principle. But it has been 
shown that no oath or test of any kind was ever used on the part of this 
House as a condition precedent to entrance into the House until the 
reign of Elizabeth ; and that when an oath was then introduced it was 
not introduced in the slightest degree as a religious test. I will show 
my hon. friend (Mr. Newdegate) — if he will allow me to call him so, 
and I think, after having sat opposite to him for forty years, I am 
entitled to use that term — I will show my hon. friend that it is so. 
My proof is this — that the oath was applied to commoners only, and not 
to peers ; and the Act expressly declares the reason why it was applied 
to commoners and not to peers. " Because," so ran the Act, " we are 
otherwise persuaded by sufficient means of the loyalty of the peers." 

Therefore it was a simple mode of ascertaining loyalty to the institutions 
of the country, and not the imposition of a religious disability. That, as a 
matter of history, was the principle of our law down to the year 1828. If 
that be so, it will be found perfectly sound doctrine that there is no dis- 
qualification of the unbeliever by the common law . You may tell me that 
it was not then merely a question of admitting atheists to this House, 
but of permitting them to live. That is true, I think, down to the year 
1614. The ancestor* ^.f those of us of English blood burned a certain 



90 S'peeclies of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

person for insufficiency of religious belief. But that case was not tlie 
case of an atheist, but of an Arian. The fact is, however, that the 
country gradually adopted the j)i'iiiciples of toleration. But where it 
tolerated it never erected barriers to prevent entrance to this House. 

Well, sir, hon. gentlemen opposite say that there are a great many 
petitions against this Bill, and that the number is much greater against 
than in favour of the Bill. I think there has been some exaggeration 
in this matter. The late Home Secretary said that the President of 
the Wesleyan Conference had expressed himself against the Bill. I 
understand the fact is directly the contrary. He disclaims having done 
so, and I have a letter in my hand on the subject. I have received my- 
self a letter, signed by Dr. Kenned}^, the hon. secretary of the Three 
Denominations of Dissenters. The letter says : '' I have the honour of 
forwarding to you a petition of the general body of the Three Denomi- 
nations of Protestant Dissenting Ministers in favour of the Bill," I 
think it is only just to read an additional extract. The writer says : 
" The personal associations which are at present connected with the 
question are so painful and offensive to the body which we represent 
that nothing but a strong sense of duty would have induced them to 
sign this petition to Parliament." Do you suppose that we feel no pain ? 
Do you suppose that we are unaware how difficult, how all but imprac- 
ticable, it has become to do what we believe to be strict justice in the 
face of such associations 1 If you do not know this, you ought ; and if 
you do know, you should not, from your place in this House, sarcas- 
tically deride us and advise us to inscribe on our banner, ''Bradlaugh 
and Blasphemy." I believe that every one of those intending to vote 
for this Bill feels that it is indeed difficult to do justice under such cir- 
cumstances ; but the difficulty is the measure of the duty and of the 
honour ; and, just as if we were in a jury-box and a prisoner stood 
before us on a criminal charge, we will put a strong hand of self-restraint 
upon ourselves, and we will take care that full justice, nothing more and 
nothing less, shall be avrarded to every citizen of England. In these 
considerations, as I believe and am persuaded, is to be found the reason 
why so many who feel it their duty to support this Bill have, notwith- 
standing, shrunk from exposing themselves to the odium so very freely 
cast upon the supporters of this measure by those who oppose it. 

But I am bound to say a little more than that. The people who 
have subscribed petitions against this Bill are very numerous — I think 
about four times the number of those who have petitioned in favour 
of it. I am persuaded that the former have acted under the influ- 
ence of what are justly called religious instincts. In my opinion, 
upon broad questions of jDrinciple which stand out disentangled from 
surrounding facts, the immediate instincts and sense of the people 
are very \ generally right. But I cannot say that this is a uni- 
form and an unbending rule, and it does undoubtedly sometimes 
happen that when broad principles are disguised by the incidents of the 
case, the momentary judgment, the momentary opinion, guided by the 
instincts of a population, is not a safe guide. If I were to make an ex- 
ception to the general justice of the instincts of the people— and it is an 
exception not dishonourable to them — I say I should trust them far 



The Bradlaugh Question. 91 



more on c[uestiQn3 where tlieir own immediate interests are concerned 
than on qnestiops where the prepossessions of religion are concerned. 
The latter is a class of questions on which we must be careful against 
taking momentary indications of public feeling for our guide. These in- 
dications are opposed in man}^ instances to the judgment of mankind. 
This is no assumption of mine. I would ask those who have studied 
the liistory of the year 1829, when the great Act for Roman Catholic 
emancipation was passed, do they believe that the Act at that moment 
represented the feelings of the majority of the people of Great Britain ? 
No, sir, it w^as distinctly against them. It was a combination of the 
guides of the people, it was the leaders, not on one side, but on both 
sides, who, superior to the temptation of gathering momentary profit 
from an appeal to religious prejudice, guided the people, and took upon 
themselves tlie responsibility in their caj)acity as legislators of doing 
that which they believed and knew to be right, trusting to the people to 
do them justice and to recognise their motives. If I were to go back 
further into history 1 might quote other cases of a gross character, when 
popular risings under the influence of not untrue, though misguided, 
religious instincts disgraced the annals of this country. I will give one 
instance. It will be remembered that about 130 years ago this House 
and the Legislature passed an Act for the purpose of naturalising tlie 
Jews. A great popular movement immediately took place against it. 
Are you to look back upon that movement and say, "Poor ignorant 
wretches, what compassion we feel for you?" No, sir; these men, 
according to the feelings and tlie knowledge of their day, were acting 
upon exactly the same principles and under exactly the same im- 
pulses as the petitioners of to-day. They thought that to admit a 
professor of a religion founded upon or absolutely involving a denial of 
Him who is the Alpha and Omega of our religion — they thought, or at 
least their instincts told them, that there was in that Act something 
which tended to impair the Christianity of the country. And there is 
precisely the same feeling now, if allowance be made for the progress in 
the political education of the country. It is nothing but the combina- 
tion of the leaders of parties that can direct aright questions of this kind, 
Tvhere religious prepossessions are involved, where the facts are but very 
partially known out of doors, and where the people have no means of 
sounding the difhcult legal questions and complicated arguments that 
puzzle even many members of this House. If these leaders of jjarties do 
not see their way to the performance of that duty, or think that their 
duty lies in an opposite direction, then I, for my part, cannot be sur- 
prised that large numbers of people should, under the influence of sen- 
timents which I regard with the highest respect and honour, take an 
action w^hich I believe is wrong, and which I am convinced is unjust. 
The other night the right hon. gentleman the late Home Secretary spent 
more than half an hour by that clock in detailing the guilty conduct of 
the Government in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh. I did not require that 
assurance to show that hon. gentlemen opposite were pleased. They 
showed me on Monday night that they were extremely pleased. They 
would have been pleased if, instead of half-an-hour, he had taken an 
hour-and-a-half upon topics so inviting and racy in their character. 



92 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone^ M.P. 

The question I humbly put to hon. gentlemen opposite is this : " What 
in the world has that conduct to do with the matter ] " Supposing it 
were all true, and supposing the Bill were the best Bill upon earth, it 
ought to pass if the conduct of the Government were ever so bad ; and 
if the Bill is a bad Bill it ought not to pass if the conduct of the Govern- 
ment were ever so good. 

Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to ascribe to me a peculiar feeling, of 
sympathetic enthusiasm in the course we have taken, and they seem to 
imagine that I am possessed with a missionary zeal in driving forward 
with all my might the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh into this House. 
What I wish to point out is that we have rendered no assistance what- 
ever to Mr. Bradlaugh. Did the House of Lords assist Mr. Bradlaugh 
last week ? Did Lord Coleridge assist him yesterday 1 The House of 
Lords has no more assisted Mr. Bradlaugh than the two Courts which 
declared one after another that he had no right to affirm in this House 
have opposed him. What we have endeavoured to do has been to keep 
the proceedings of this House within the bounds of law and constitu- 
tional order ; and it is no secret to you that in our opinion they have 
not been kept within those bounds, owing to the voice of a majority 
which required from us a respectful obedience, but which required and 
was entitled to nothing more. The right hon. gentleman opposite says 
that I abdicated the position of leader of this House. Sir, if the words 
are to be used at all, it is not a case of abdication, but of deposition. 
But I am astonished at the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman. He 
knows our ground. He knows that we were insisting on what we 
thought our judicial duty, and yet he affirms that when a view of judi- 
cial duty opposite to ours has been taken, we, who had been acting in 
the name of judicial duty, were to devise the means of giving effect to 
that opposite view. Well, sir, I repel and repudiate with all my soul 
that servile proposition. I am willing to part with the place I hold 
and with the seat I hold, but I am not willing for a moment to give in 
to such a doctrine. We have endeavoured to support, to the best of our 
power, the executive authority of the House. That murmur only shows 
that the facts have not been carefully watched ; but as as to taking upon 
ourselves the responsibility of applying votes of this House, that we 
believe to involve radical injustice, and that I believe — I repeat for my- 
self without hesitation or scruple — to be such as in the case of any 
minor authority would be termed illegal ; to ask me to make myself 
the instrument of devising means for carrying such votes into effect, 
that, sir, is a demand which I utterly reject, and which I hold to be 
totally unsupported by any fact that has occurred in the best ages of our 
Parliamentary tradition. 

I must say I think it is very strange that these accusations should be 
brought. It may be that gentlemen opposite have something to bias 
them towards a particular course, which brings them political profit. I 
am making no accusation. I only say it may be that they have some- 
thing to bias them in that direction. But what could we have to bias 
us in the direction that we have taken ? Do you suppose that we are 
ignorant that in every contested election that has happened since the case 
of Mr. Bradlaugh came up you have gained votes and we have lost them 1 



The Mradlaugh Question. 93 

You are perfectly aware of it. We are not less aware of it. But is not 
some credit to be given to us — we giving you the same under circum- 
stances rather more difficult — for presumptive integrity and purity of 
motive % Sir, the Liberal party has suffered and is suffering on this 
account. It is not the first time in its history. It is the old story over 
again. In every controversy that has arisen about the extension of 
religious toleration, and about the abatement and removal of disqualifi- 
cations — ^in every controversy relating to religious toleration and to 
religious disabilities, the Liberal party has suffered before, and is now 
suffering again. And yet it has not been the party which upon the 
whole has had during the last half century the smallest or the feeblest 
hold upon the affections and the approval of the people. Who suffered 
from the Protestantism of their country ? It was that party, with 
valuable aid from individuals, but only from individuals, who forfeited 
their popularity on that account — it was that party who fought the 
battle of freedom in the great Eoman Catholic controversy, when the 
name of Protestantism was invoked with quite as great an effect — and 
when the petitions poured in quite as freely — as the name of Theism is 
now. Protestantism stood the shock of the Act of 1829. Then came 
on the battle of Christianity, and the Christianity of the country 
was said to be sacrificed by the Liberal party. There are gentlemen 
on the opposite side of the House who seem to have forgotten all that 
has occurred, and rather to plume themselves on the admission of Jews 
to Parliament, as if they had not resisted — (and with perfect honesty ; 
I make no charge against their honour, and impute no unworthy 
motive) — as if they had not resisted it with quite as much resolution 
as they are exhibiting on the present occasion. Sir, what I hope is 
this, that the Liberal party will not be deterred by fear or favour 
from walking steadily onwards in the path which it believes to be the 
path of equity and justice. There is no greater honour to a man than to 
suffer for the sake of what he thinks to be righteous ; and there is no 
greater honour to a party than to suffer in the endeavour to give effect 
to principles which they believe to be just. 

Sir, I have occupied the House all this time on what I consider to be 
extraneous and collateral matter, but matter which has been introduced 
largely into every speech we have heard from the other side. Now let 
us try to get at the heart of the argument on what, after all, is not 
a very complex subject, but which is an exceedingly interesting one. 
The business of every man in controversy is to try to find out what is 
the main, the governing contention of his adversary. I have laboured 
to find it out, and I think I have probably found it : I hope so. As I 
read it, the governing contention is this, that the main question for the 
State is not what religion a man professes, but whether he professes 
some religion or none. I was in hope of receiving some affirmatory 
testimony to that from the hon. gentlemen opposite, I might dispense 
with proofs, but I will give them. The right hon. gentleman who led 
the opposition to this Bill said that this was not a question of difference 
of religion but was a question between religion and irreligion — between 
religion and the absence of all religion ; and clearly the basis of the right 
hon. gentleman's speech was that we were to tolerate any belief, but 



94 Bpeeclies of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

tliat we were not to tolerate no belief. I mean by tolerate, admit to the 
House of Commons. My lion, friend the member for Finsbury, in an 
able speecli, expressed still more clearly similar views. He referred to 
the ancient controversies, and he said those controversies were all very 
well ; they touched, he said, excrescences, and not the vital substance. 
Now, sir, I want to examine what is tlie]^vital substance and what are 
the excrescences. My hon. friend went further than this, and used a 
most apt, appropriate, expressive and still more significant phrase ; for 
he said, " Yes, it is true you admit religions, some of which may go 
near the precijDice, but now you ask us to go over the precipice." 
Gentlemen opposite cheered that loudly when it was said by my hon. 
friend behind me ; they will not give me a single cheer now. They 
suspect I am quoting this with some evil intent. The question is, am I 
quoting them fairly ? or is it the fact that some gentlemen have really 
not considered their attitude towards this Bill except that they mean to 
oppose whatever is suggested by the Government 1 However, I know 
]ny hon. friend has considered very w^ell what he said when he used the 
simile about going near the precipice. Now I wish to ascertain what is 
the value of this main and principal contention ? The hon. and learned 
gentleman, the member for Launceston, held exactly the same language. 
Adopting a phrase which had fallen from the hon. member for Ports- 
mouth, and which he thought had been unfairly turned and applied, he 
said he wished that there should be some form of belief or other, some 
recognition of belief, something of what is called in the world of philo- 
sophical discussion a recognition of the supernatural. I believe that is 
a phrase which goes as near to what hon. gentlemen opposite mean as 
anything can. That is the main contention of the party opposite, and 
what I want to know is whether that proposition offers us a good solid 
standing ground for legislation. Whatever test is applied, the test of the 
Constitution, the test of civil and political freedom, or above all, the test 
of religion and reverence for religious feeling — I do not hesitate to say 
that, confidently as I support this Bill, there is no one ground on which 
I support it with so much confidence as because of what I think the 
utter hoUowness and falsity of the arguments expressed in the words I 
have just cited and in the idea at the bottom of these words, and the 
danger of making them the basis of our constitutional action. Now, sir, 
what does this contention do 1 In the fi.rst place it evidently violates 
civil freedom to this extent — that, in the words of Lord Lyndhurst, 
which are as wide as anj^thing any gentleman on this side could desire, 
there was to be a total divorce between the question of religious differ- 
ences and the question of civil privilege and power ; that there was to 
be no religious test, no test whatever applied to a man with respect to 
the exercise of civil functions except the test of civil caj^acity and a 
fulfilment of civil conditions. Those were the words of Lord Lynd- 
hurst, those are the words on which we stand. But it is now proposed 
to depart from this position, and to say that a certain class, perhaps a 
very narrow class, is, because it has no religion, to be excepted, and 
alone to be excepted, from the operation of that great and broad princij)le. 
In my opinion it is in the highest degree irrational to lay down a broad 
principle of that kind, and to stop short, after granting 99-lOOths of all 



The Bradlaugh Question. 95 

it means, in order to make an invidious exclusion of any liandful of 
persons whom the exception maj possibly affect. 

Hon. gentlemen may perhaps be startled when I make my next 
objection to the contention of the opponents of the Bill, which is this, 
that that contention is highly disparaging to Christianity. Hon. 
gentlemen opposite invite ns to do that which, as a Legislature, we 
ought never to do — namel}^, to travel over theological ground ; and 
now, having taken us upon that ground, what is it they tell us ? They 
say this, that you may go any length you please in the denial of 
religion^ provided only you do not reject the name of the Deity. They 
tear religion into shreds, so to speak, and say that there is one particular 
shred with which nothing will ever induce them to part. They divide 
religion into the dispensable and the indispensable, and among that kind 
which can be dispensed with — I am not now speaking of those who 
declare, or are admitted under a special law, I am not speaking of Jews 
or of those who make a declaration, I am speaking solely of those for 
whom no provision is made except the provision of the oath — they 
divide, I say, religion into what can and what cannot be dispensed 
with, and then they find that Christianity can be dispensed with. 
There is something, however, that cannot be dispensed with. I am not 
willing, sir, that Christianity, if the appeal is made to us as a Christian 
Legislature, shall stand in any rank lower than that which is indis- 
pensable. I may illustrate what I mean. Suppose a commander has 
to despatch a small body of men on an expedition, on which it is 
necessary for them to carry on their backs all that they take with them, 
the men part with everything that is unnecessary, and take only that 
which is essential. That is the course that you ask us to take in drawing 
us upon theological ground ; you require us to distinguish between 
superfluities and necessa.ries, and you tell us that Christianity is one of 
the superfluities, one of the excrescences, and has nothing to do with the 
vital substance, the name of the Deity, which is indispensable. I say 
that the adoption of such a proposition as that, which is in reality at 
the very root of your contention, is disparaging in the very highest 
degree to the Christian faith. I pass to another point. My hon. friend 
the member for Finsbury made a reference to Mr. O'Connell, whom 
he knew personally. I will not say that I had so intimate a personal 
knowledge of him as my hon. friend, but when I was a very young man, 
in the second year of my sitting in Parliament, in the old House, about 
half a century ago, I heard a speech from Mr. O'Connell, which, though 
I was then bound by my party allegiance to receive with distrust 
anything he said, made a deep impression on me and by which I think 
I have ever since been guided. It is to be found, not in " Hansard," 
but in a record which for a very few years was more copious even than 
" Hansard," and went under the name of the " Mirror of Parliament.^' 
Mr. O'Connell used these words in a speech on the law of libel : — 

"When I see in this country the law allowing men to dispute the doctrine of the 
Trinity and the Divinity of the Kedeemer, I really think if I had no other reason 
I should be justified in saying that thex'e is nothing beyond that which should be 
considered worth quarrelling for, or which ought to be made a subject of penal 
restrictions." 



96 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, 21. P. 

I am convinced that on every religious ground, as well as on every 
political ground, the true and the wise course is not to deal out religious 
liberty by halves, quarters, and fractions, but to deal it out entire, and 
make no distinctions between man and man on the ground of religious 
difference from one end of the land to the other. But I go a little 
further in endeavouring to probe this contention which has been put 
forward by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I want to know is your 
religious distinction a real distinction at all ? I will, for the sake of 
argument, and for no other purpose whatever, go with you on this 
dangerous ground of splitting theology into slices, and I ask you where 
you will draw the line. You draw your line at the point where the 
abstract denial of God is severed from the abstract admission of the 
Deity. My proposition is that the line thus drawn is worthless, and 
that much on your side of the line is as objectionable as the Atheism on 
the other. If you call upon us to make distinctions, let them, at least, 
be rational ; I do not say let them be Christian distinctions, but let them 
be rational. I can understand one rational distinction, that you should 
frame the oath in such a way as to recognise not only the existence of 
the Deity, but the Providence of the Deity, and man's responsibility to 
the Deity ; and in such a way as to indicate the knowledge in a man's 
own mind that he must answer to the Deity for what he does, and is able 
to do. But is that jomt present rule ? No, sir, you know very well that 
from ancient times there have been sects and schools that have admitted 
in the abstract as freely as Christians the existence of a Deity, but have 
held that of practical relations between Him and man there can be 
none. Many members of this House will recollect the noble and majestic 
lines — 

" Omnis enim per se Divom natura necesse est 

Immortali sevo summa cum pace fruatur, 

Sejuncta a nostris rebus, remotaque longe. 

Nam privata dolors omni, privata periclis, 

Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri 

Nee bene promeritis capitur nee tangitur ira." 

" Divinity exists" — according to these, I must say, magnificent lines — 
" in remote and inaccessible recesses ; but with us it has no dealing, of 
us it has no need, with us it has no relation." I do not hesitate to say 
that the specific evil, the specific form of irreligion, with which in the 
educated society of this country you have to contend, and with respect 
to which you ought to be on your guard, is not blank Atheism. That 
is a rare opinion very seldom met with ; but what is frequently met 
with is that form of ojoinion which would teach us that, whatever may 
be beyond the visible things of this world, whatever there be beyond 
this short span of life, you know and you can know nothing of it, and 
that it is a bootless undertaking to attempt to establish relations with it. 
That is the mischief of the age, and that mischief you do not attempt to 
touch. What is more, you glory in the state of the law that now 
prevails ; you wish to tolerate all differences of religion, you wish to 
allow every one to enter into your Chamber who admits the existence 
of the Deity. You would seek to admit Voltaire. That is a specimen 
of your toleration. Voltaire was not a taciturn foe of Christianity. He 



The Bradlaugh Questio7i. 97 

was the author of that painful phrase which goes to the heart of every 
Christian, and of many a professor of religion who is not a Christian — 
ecrasez Vinfdme. And yet that is the state of the law for which you are 
working up the country to madness, endeavouring to strengthen in the 
minds of the people the false notion that you have got a real test, a real 
safeguard, and that Christianity is still safe, with certain unavoidable 
exceptions, under the protecting segis of the oath, within the walls of 
this Chamber. And for this you excite a great religious war ! I hold 
that this contention of our opponents is disparaging to religion ; it is 
idle, it is irrational. For if you are to have a religious test at all, a test 
of Theism, which was what the hon. member for Portsmouth frankly 
said he wished to adopt, it ought to be a test of a well-ascertained 
Theism ; not a mere abstract idea dwelling in the air and the clouds, but 
a practical recognition of a Divine governing Power to which we are to 
account for every thought we conceive, for every word we utter. 

I fear I have detained the House too long. But after all that has 
been said, and after all the flood of accusation and of invective that 
has been [poured out, I have thought it right, at great length and 
very seriously, to show at all events that we do not decline the battle, 
and that we are not going to allow it to be said that the interests 
of religion are to find defenders only on the opposite side of the House. 
That sincere and conscientious defenders of the interests of religion are 
to be found there I do not question at this moment ; but I do contend 
with my wliole heart and soul that the interests of religion as well as 
the interests of civil liberty are concerned in the passing of this Bill. 
My reason for saying that may be given in a very few words. If I were 
asked to put a construction upon this oath I should probably give it a 
higher meaning than most gentlemen opposite. It is my opinion that 
the oath has in it a very large flavour of Christianity. I am well aware 
that the doctrine of my hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-General, 
is that there are other forms of positive attestation, recognised by other 
systems of religion, which may enable the oath to be taken, by the 
removal of the words, " so help me God " and the substitution of other 
words, or of some other symbolical act, involving the notion of the Deity 
and responsibility to the Deity. I do not now refer to cases of that 
kind, but to cases Avhere the oath is taken in the usual form. Now 
remember the oath does not consist of spoken words alone. The spoken 
words are accompanied by the corroborative act of kissing the book, 
which, according to the intention of the Legislature, ought to import the 
acceptance of the Divine revelation. There have been other forms in 
other countries. I do not know whether there is still in Scotland the 
form of holding up the hand. In Spain, I believe, the form is that of 
kissing the cross ; in Italy, that of laying the hand upon the Gospel. 
But in this, according to the original intention, there is something which 
involves the acceptance of Christianity. You do not mean that the law 
is, or can be, applied in this sense. A law of this kind is like coin spick 
and span new from the Mint, carrying upon it all its edges in their 
sharpness and freshness. But it wears down in passing from hand to 
hand ; and, though there is a residuum, yet the distinguishing features 
disappear. So it is vdth the oath. Whatever my opinion may be as to 

■ • E 



98 Speeches of Right Hon. Williain Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

the original vitality of the oath, there is very little difference of opinion 
as to what it has now become. It has become a theistic test. It does, 
as I think, involve a reference to Christianity, but while this is my 
personal opinion, it is not recognised by authority, and, at any rate, does 
not prevail in practice ; for some gentlemen in the other House of Par- 
liament, if not in this also, have written works against the Christian 
religion, and yet have taken the oath. But undoubtedly it is not good 
for any of us to force this test so flavoured, or even not so flavoured, 
upon men who cannot take it with a full and cordial acceptance. It is 
bad to do it ; it is demoralising. It is all very well to say, " Oh, yes, 
but it is their responsibility." That is not in my view a satisfactory 
answer. A seat in this House is to an ordinary Englishman in early 
life, or perhaps, in middle or mature life, when he has reached a position 
of distinction in his career, the highest prize of his ambition. If you 
place between him and that prize not only the necessity of conforming 
to certain civil conditions, but the adoption of certain religious words, 
and if these words are not justly measured to the conditions of his con- 
science and convictions, you give him an inducement — nay, I do not go 
too far when I say — you offer him a bribe to tamper with those convic-_ 
tions, to do violence to his conscience in order that he may not be stig- 
matised by being shut out from what is held to be the noblest privilege 
of the English citizen, that of representing his fellow-citizens. There- 
fore I say that besides our duty to vindicate the principle of civil and 
religious liberty, it is most important that the House should consider 
the moral effect of this test. It is — as the hon. member for Portsmouth 
is neither more nor less than right in saying — a purely theistic test. 
Viewed as a theistic test, it embraces no acknowledgment of Providence, 
of Divine Government, of responsibility, or retribution. It involves 
nothing but a bare and abstract admission, a form void of all practical 
meaning and concern. This is not a wholesome, but an unwholesome 
lesson. Yet more. I own, although I am now, perhaps, going to injure 
myself by bringing the name of Mr. Bradlaugh into this controversy, I 
am strongly of opinion that the present controversy should come to a 
close. I have no fear of Atheism in this House. Truth is the expres- 
sion of the Divine mind, and, however little our feeble vision may be 
able to discern the means by which God may provide for its preserva- 
tion, "sve may leave the matter in His hands, and w^e may be sure that a 
firm and courageous application of every principle of equity and of 
justice is the best method we can adopt for the preservation and influ- 
ence of truth. And I must painfully record my opinion that grave 
injury has been done to religion in many minds — not in instructed 
minds, but in those which are ill-instructed or partially instructed, and 
which have large claim on our consideration — in consequence of steps 
which have, imhappily, been taken. Great mischief has been done in 
many minds through tlie resistance offered to a man elected by the con- 
stituency of Northampton, which a portion of the people believe to be 
unjust. When they see the profession of religion and the interests of 
religion ostensibly associated with what they are deeply convinced is 
injustice, they arc led to questions about religion itself, which they see 
to be associated with injustice. Unbelief attracts a sympathy which it 



A Vote of Censure. 99 



would not otherwise enjoy, and the upshot is to impair those convic- 
tions and that religious faith, the loss of which I believe to be the most 
inexpressible calamity which can fall either upon a man or upon a 
nation. 



A VOTE OF CENSURE. 

(7i\^ TRi: HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRTTARY 12, 1884.) 

Mr. Speaker, we have lost, but we have also gained, by the un- 
fortunate collapse of the debate last week. The Government lost an 
opportunity — when a contention had been made of the failure of its 
efforts in Lower EgyjDt — of showing that they had not failed. But 
the House have had this advantage, that the right lion, gentleman 
(Sir S, Northcote) has been able to make his motion on the basis of 
autlientic papers instead of on newspaper reports. Moreover, they 
have had this greater advantage, that, after the calamities which have 
recently happened in Egyj^t, he has felt that those calamities warrant 
him doing what last week he did not venture to do — namely, to submit 
a direct issue to the House. Why, what did he submit last week 1 He 
submitted that we could not adequately perform our part in Egypt 
unless we acknowledged our obligations. We have been doing nothing 
but acknowledging our obligations in the most solemn form. They have 
been defined and described three times over in the Speeches from the 
Throne. There was not a word in the debate of last week to tell us 
what these obligations were. Everything positive, everything binding 
was carefully avoided, and the House was invited in the name of a vote 
of censure to discuss a truism and a platitude. But the right hon. 
gentleman has now, as I say, plucked up his courage, and has sub- 
mitted to us df. direct issue of adequate force ; for in the terms of his 
motion he calls on us to allege that " the recent lamentable events in 
the Soudan are due, in great measure, to the vacillating and inconsistent 
policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government." Yes, you are ready to 
cheer those words, or any words, it matters not what, provided only they 
are sufficiently condemnatory of Her Majesty's Ministry. I am delighted 
with the frank and truly English response Avhich that affirming cheer 
gives to the sentiment I have indicated. I was not sanguine enough to 
hope for it. I admit that it was in the nature of a decoy offered to hon, 
gentlemen, and they took it and cheered it to the echo, when I said it 
did not matter whether the proposal was this or that, provided it was 
condemnatory. Now, sir, I put it to the House that there is but one 
mode in which Her Majesty's Government can meet the motion. I 
move no amendment ; I meet it with a direct negative. I say, in the 
first place, there has been no vacillation ; there has been no incon- 

E 2 



100 Speeches of Right Hon. Wiltiam Ewart Qtadstone, M.P. 

stency in tlie policy of Her Majesty's Government ; and, sir, I say 
more, that no part of the ingenious argument of the right hon. gentleman 
has for a moment gone to show that there was either vacillation or 
inconsistency. I admit that he has condemned our conduct ; but he 
has not attempted to show that one part of our conduct was inconsistent 
with another part. He has not shown that we hesitated in the adoption 
of resolutions when the circumstances were laid before us ; and the 
propositions in his motion do not derive the smallest support from any 
argument in his speech. The right hon. gentleman has used arguments 
in his speech, I admit, but his argument is this, not that we vacillated 
or flinched — I mean from our own view of the case — not that we were 
different at one time from what we were at another, but that we adopted 
a wrong policy ; that we refused to strengthen the Egyptian army for 
the conquest of the Soudan, that we refused to counsel the Egyptian 
General in the Soudan, and that we refused to over-ride the Egyptian 
Government with respect to the Soudan. Sir, these are very serious 
charges, with which I shall deal, but they have nothing to do with 
vacillation or inconsistency. 

What the right hon. gentleman calls upon the House to vote is, not 
that we have had a false policy, but that we have been vacillating and 
inconsistent in the pursuance of our policy ; and, sir, do you suppose 
for one moment that these strange inconsistencies between the speech 
and the motion of the right hon. gentleman are due to some accident— 
that they are due to a want of perception, or want of acuteness on the 
part of the right hon. gentleman 1 No, sir, nothing of the kind ; they 
are due to this — that if the right hon. gentleman, instead of charging 
us with vacillation and inconsistency, had plucked up his courage to a 
higher point, and called upon the House to condemn any particular 
portion of our policy by a motion, he would himself have been obliged 
to declare a policy. But while he, forsooth, charges us with flinching 
from responsibility, he does not dare to put his objections in a form in 
which they could receive the judgment of the House, because he knows 
that, if he did, he might bind himself to something, whereas the essence 
of the whole affair is that he shall bind himself to nothing. 1 must say 
that the right hon. gentleman, considering the nature of the case that he 
had to lay before us, has been very far from extravagant. I have risen 
somewhat in contravention of my own statement of Parliamentary 
usage in a case which is a very broad one, at a time, when I am afraid 
I shall be a loser in a competition which will presently arise in this 
House between continuing in this House to hear my argument, and the 
fulfilment of a very much more necessary, if not more legitimate 
purpose. Whether I am justified in the charge I have just made (and 
I have made a very distinct charge) that the speech of the right hon. 
gentleman had nothing whatever to do with his motion, and that he 
did not venture to put the upshot of his speech into a motion, because 
it would have bound him to a policj^ and he was determined not to 
bind himself to any policy — whether this be so or not, I say that this 
debate has a wider interest than the mere issue raised between the two 
parties. I shall not scruple, as far as my strength permits me, to say 
to the House all that appears to me of vital importance, in order to 



A Vote of Censure. 101 



redeem the pledges I liave given, to practise no reserve, and to state 
minutely and particularly those facts that are material to enable the 
House to judge of our conduct. But I must go beyond that, and say 
that this debate will have the character of a historical debate. Now 
for the first time is raised a great issue between parties in this House, 
but that great issue involves in it something much more important than 
the victories of Oppositions, or the continuance of Ministries ; it involves 
the development of great and useful lessons with regard to rash and 
unwise interventions. I will at least take care that I shall be sufficiently 
explicit in what I have got to say. It is absolutely necessary to go 
further back than the right hon. gentleman has done, and to present, 
in what I conceive to be its completeness, the case of the Government. 

Sir, the situation in Egypt, with or without the aggravation of the 
Soudan and the increase of the responsibililties which it has brought, is 
one of the utmost degree of anomaly and inconvenience, and, in some 
points of view, perhaps even of political danger. How has this situation 
come about ? Where is the root of the mischief ? It is the business of 
the House to censure the Government if they have gone wrong ; but it 
is the business of the House, as the guardians of the public weal, to 
search to the very bottom into the causes and origins of great public 
disaster or of great and serious public inconvenience. Sir, I affirm, and 
I will show, that the situation in Egypt was not one which we made 
but one that we found. I shall show that we have an option. I am not 
prematurely claiming your assent, I am stating what I will show, not 
what I have shown. I will show that we do not claim those laudations 
for vigorous initiatives, and the like, which have been sweet perhaps to 
the ears of others. 

We are content to administer the affairs of an Empire of 300 millions, 
and as far as we can to keep the enormous interests of that fifth or fourtli 
part of the population of this globe within the limits, already wide 
enough, which history, Providence, and the genius of the country have 
assigned to them. But, sir, it would not have been in keeping with 
the propriety of things to reverse the attitude which we found occupied 
by the British Government in Egypt. We inherited from our pre- 
decessors certain engagements — see whether I make good my words or 
not ; from those engagements it has never been in our power honourably 
to escape. Sir, what the country knows is perhaps not much of this 
case. They know that there was established in Egypt what was termed 
the Dual Control. But what was the Dual Control ? It was the 
establishment in the heart and centre of Egyptian government of two 
great functionaries, the representatives of two of the greatest nations in 
the world, who held their office in Egypt, and for Egypt, by a tenure 
independent of the will of Egypt, and dependent altogether upon the 
will of the two Governments they represented. For what did these 
two nations go there ? The right hon. gentleman can contradict me if I 
am inaccurate. I say they went there pledged to each other for certain 
purposes. It was not merely to manage revenues in the interests of 
the bondholders ; it was general control, general advice, general support 
to the Government of Egypt. The late ruler of Egypt had been dis- 
placed, a new ruler had been put upon the throne, by the agency mainly 



102 Speeches oj Right Hon. 'William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

of the Britisli Government — -at any rate, witli an essential and at least 
equal share in the operation. The two Governments had undertaken 
obligations towards that ruler, and in my opinion those obligations w^ere, 
when they had once established this extraordinary system, matters 
strictly and essentially consequential. They could not possibly have 
put Tewfik on the throne and have declined to support him ; and they 
bound themselves to one another to support him, and to support him 
earnestly. They bound themselves, likewise, to one another, while 
those were their obligations to him, to maintain the peculiar and, in a 
certain sense, exclusive political influence that these two Powers, and 
these alone, were to exercise in Egypt. Under these circumstances, it 
was obvious that we were bound to counsel the Khedive to the best of 
our ability. I do not speak now of the action of the hon. member for 
Kipon. The right hon. gentleman knows that my remarks have nothing 
to do wdth his proceedings in Egypt. They have nothing to do with 
any of the ^proceedings of the late Government in the earlier part of its 
existence. They have to do with the Dual Control established under 
Lord Salisbury, and my contention is, that wdien we placed independent 
officer^ representative of England and France to hold ofiice in Egypt by 
a tenure in no way dependent on Egypt, we were bound — indeed, Lord 
Salisbury has alwaj^s admitted this — to counsel the Khedive to the best 
of our ability. 

The next contention is, that it w^e counselled the Khedive to the best 
of our ability, w^e were bound by every sentiment of honour to support 
our counsels by our acts. It is a singular pleasure to me wdien I find 
myself in concurrence, as has happened already once or twice, with 
hon. gentlemen opposite. It has been admitted that, when difficulties 
arose in the country — such as the difficulties of the year before last — 
we were bound to give, by the position we occupied, our advice to the 
Khedive upon all those difficulties ; and having given that advice, we 
were bound to support it by consequent action to such an extent as 
circumstances might appear to demand, subject, of course, to the judg- 
ment of Parliament. I am not in the habit of going back upon state- 
ments of my own, but I must say that all these obligations and all the 
difficulties they involved ought to have been foreseen. I must say that 
the late Government, when they built up this curious system, did it 
wdth their eyes open. They were not unwarned of what would happen. 
They were not unwarned that the establishment of financial control by 
a Government must mean political control, and must involve political 
responsibilities. I hope it will not be an unpardonable breach of 
manners if, happening to recollect what I myself said upon the subject, 
I read an extract reported in " Hansard " on the 6th of March, 1876, not 
corrected by me, but expressing with substantial accuracy what I said. 
This was at the very first beginning of this intervention ; and no control 
such as I now speak of was established for some considerable time, I 
think three years afterwards. This was the warning I ventured to 
give : — 

" I should, therefore, wish to know whether, if the proposition for the 
appointment of such a commissioner be entertained, the right, hon, 
gentleman " (that was Lord Beaconsfield) " means the appointment of a 
Commissioner who would really have such an effective control over all 



A Vote of Censure. 103 



arrangements and the mode of accounting for these revenues that he 
could guarantee to us the receipt of the whole, that it might be applied 
to the purpose in view ? If this is what it does mean, it appears to me 
that we are only shifting the difficulty one step further ; because in that 
case our Commissioner is to take into his hands the administration of a 
very important portion of the government of Egypt ; so that the 
measures which we may think necessary as a matter of |)rudence to 
cover the proposal which we are to consider may entail upon us 
still greater difficulties and mix us up still further with a heavier 
responsibility for a portion of the internal government of Egypt. 
When we have begun with one portion of the internal government of 
Egypt, we may pass on to another. We may come to occupy the entire 
ground by a series of degrees not difficult to contemplate ; and possibly 
this may have been in the mind of the right lion, gentleman the other 
night, when he said that, while the people of this country would view 
the diminution of the Empire with horror, they would see it increased 
without dissatisfaction," 

Thus, I ventured to point out what I do not think I deserve the 
smallest credit for ]3ointing out — namely, that these arrangements, then 
in partial contemplation, afterwards greatly developed and, rigidly en- 
forced, did advance from financial to political, and from political to pro- 
bably territorial responsibilities. I have no charge of ill-motives to 
make against the late Government. In my opinion they committed a 
great error, of which we are now from day to day bearing the burden. 
I give theiu every credit for honourable and upright motives. Though 
I then disapproved of the means, and now, I do not need to say, still 
more deeply lament these means were resorted to ; yet I am fully per- 
suaded that the object which the late Government had in view was to 
secure a better Government for Egypt. Further, I admit that very con- 
siderable practical and administrative advantages were secured for the 
fellaheen by the administration of the revenue ; although I am afraid 
those advantages were far more than counterbalanced in their political im- 
portance by our having imported into the country that fatal and most 
dangerous idea that it was doomed to be placed under foreign domina- 
tion, and that Egypt Avas to be governed and maintained for the benefit 
of persons beyond its borders. The noble lord cheers me, and there is 
very great truth in what I take to be the meaning of that cheer. He 
probably thinks that Arabi Avas one who fought against tliat foreign do- 
mination. That is not my view. I think I could give conclusive proof 
to the contrary ; but of this I do not entertain a doubt, that Arabi was 
able to give vigour and extension to his motives by appealing to that 
hatred of foreign domination ; and so long as foreign domination con- 
tinues in Egypt, the danger will recur from time to time. So far, I have 
said something to show that I do not use idle words, when I allege that 
the situation which we have now in Egypt was, in its root and origin, 
far beyond the power of such prosaic people as the present Ministers to 
conceive. It was due to higher and more venturesome geniuses, such as 
those who preceded us. There has been no moment at which it was 
possible for us, consistently with our honour, to retrace our course. And 
we must look back as well as forward if we want to place before the 



104 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

Englisli people — the people of the three kingdoms — all the lessons of 
this great question, which is far greater than the hon. gentleman would 
lead us to believe. 

I have spoken thus far of the situation in Egypt down to the close of 
the military operations, and I will adopt divisions of time in what I 
have to say, for the purpose of being more intelligible to the House, 
and depriving myself of the power of using subterfuge, even if I were 
(which I trust is not the case) inclined to resort to it. The close of the 
military operations was, I think, on the 21st of September, 1882 — the 
time of the surrender of Damietta, the battle of Tel-ei-Kebir having 
been fought eight days or something like that before. The right hon. 
gentleman has placed the pith of his charge during the thirteen months 
between the surrender of Damietta and the defeat of Hicks Pacha in 
November, 1883. He is extremely angry with us because in our 
cowardice — our timidity about responsibility — we did not take enough 
of responsibility for the Soudan. Well, we had to begin with taking a 
good deal of responsibility upon us. We had taken the responsibility of 
military operations. The army was entirely broken up. The institu- 
tions of the country were gone. We had before us the work of recon- 
stitution. Our obligation in honour to support the Khedive bound us 
in our opinion to supply him with the means of defence, and with some 
primary means of good government. In those thirteen months what 
was the course we took ? We sent to Egypt the very best men of every 
class and stamp that w^e could find. From Dafferin to Gordon — from 
the first to the last, though I might go back to Sir E. Malet, but it would 
be too long to enumerate the list of able, upright, patriotic men who have 
been serving the interests of Egypt with our concurrence and authority 
— but from l)ufterin to Gordon, they were men as remarkable for their 
ability and fitness for their work as any men that have ever been in the 
political service of the British Crown. I am not going to say, because 
they were able men they were responsible for what was done, but I am 
going to say that, at least, by choosing men of that vigour and masculine 
force of character, and that consummate skill in affairs, we did not take 
the course which might be taken by those who were undoubtedly 
anxious to shirk their proper responsibility. We endeavoured to go to 
the root of the matter, and to put into action all those reforms which it 
was clearly necessary we should endeavour to make. If we were bound 
to support the Khedive, Ave were bound to support him earnestly — and 
I am sorry to say that the right hon. gentleman has been extremely 
reticent on that subject— and, if we were bound to support the Khedive 
earnestly, we were bound to have some regard also for his people ; and, 
if we endeavoured to give security to his throne by the constitution of 
something like an adequate military force, we were bound also to do 
Avhat we could in seconding what we not only believed, but what we 
knew, to be his own good, upright, and patriotic intentions for the 
government of Egypt and the good of his people. Was nothing done in 
that period ? New tribunals for natives were organised, and I believe I 
may say that they were at work — at any rate the codes have been for 
some time completed, and the judges have been appointed. Legislative 
institutions, hardly, I admit, worthy of that name — they would perhaps 



A Vote of Censure. 105 



be more accurately called consultative institutions — but intended to give 
some moderate expression to the national life, have been framed, and 
the scheme has been carried into execution. Elections have taken place, 
and the Legislative Council met last November at the very epoch of the 
disaster to General Hicks' force. It will be remembered what grievances 
there were with regard to the undue employment of foreigners and the 
non-taxation of foreigners. With respect to the undue employment of 
foreigners great efforts have been made, which it may be possible to 
exhibit more fully in the shape of numerical results at a future stage, 
largely to cut them down. The non-taxation of foreigners is no easy 
matter to deal with. It is liable to be met by jealousies in every quarter. 
However, the actual state of the case is this, that that exceptional and 
odious practice has been given up of course by us, and not by us alone, 
but by France, Italy, Germany, and Austria ; in truth, I believe I may 
say by nearly every Power in any way concerned. The land survey, 
which the right hon. gentleman I think referred to the other night, has 
been economised, and what is thought a new and better system for con- 
ducting it has been introduced. I do not know whether the rio-ht 

1 • • • 

hon. gentleman thinks that in our thirteen months of occupation we 
ought to have completed our land survey ; but when I reflect that in 
the half- century during which I have been a member of this House, I 
have been accustomed to hear of successive votes for the completion of 
our national cadastral survey, it does not seem to me that an excessive 
term has been occupied in this matter in Egypt. A valuable report has 
been made upon irrigation by Mr. Moncrietf, and I trust great benefit is 
to be expected from it. With regard to the constabulary and police, the 
constabulary was organised in what appeared to be an effective form for 
its purposes under Baker Pacha. The police is certainly under the most 
efficient handling we could give it, being in the hands of Mr. Clifford 
Lloyd. I believe, and have been informed, that the prisons have under- 
gone considerable, at all events initial, reforms, I will not refer to 
sanitary departments and other matters. But there are several very 
important matters, such as the debts of the fellaheen, which have not 
escaped attention, and a Commission has been appointed for the con- 
sideration of that question. The slave traffic to which the right hon. 
gentleman refers has not been forgotten, and the charge of all measures 
relating to it has been transferred to what I believe to be the best and 
most efficient department — namely, the department of the Inspector- 
General of Constabulary, with an increase of means, and a better system 
for including the principal routes now under reformation. The only 
other point I will mention, that is vital to the whole, is, that the army 
has been organised under the able auspices of Sir Evelyn Wood. All 
the rex3orts of officers show that its discipline is as high as, indeed higher 
than, it was possible or reasonable for us to expect. I have only now to 
say that instead of having failed in carrying forward these institutions, 
we were justified in advising Her Majesty to declare in the Speech from 
the Throne that, down to the month of November last, in the execution 
of this exceedingly heavy and responsible work, she had ample reason 
to be satisfied with the progress which had been made. 

I wish to say two or three words, however, upon the exact ]30sition 



106 Speeches of Bight Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

wMcli we hold in Egypt, for it is material that it should be accurately 
understood. At one moment the right hon. gentleman cast upon us 
great responsibility for having shattered the Government of Egypt, 
which he said it may be impossible to replace with dignity and credit 
before the people ; but not many sentences before in his speech, he had 
reproached us with at least equal vigour for not shattering that Govern- 
ment long before. 

A PROTECTORATE IN EGYPT. 

It will be in the recollection of the House, when I affirm that, 
again and again, he stated how it was our business to have forced 
upon the Egyptian Government, much earlier than we did, the 
adoption of principles and methods of action, to which we have been 
unhappily compelled to resort. In my oj^inion, this shattering of the 
Egyptian Government is a very serious matter indeed. It is an essen- 
tial portion of our policy to uphold the Egyptian Government with all 
the credit and dignity we can. We bound ourselves to that, and there- 
fore we do not wish to make any demand upon the Egyptian Govern- 
ment except that which necessity requires. But, sir, as the Power in 
military occupation of the country, we are after all primarily responsible 
in those matters which we deem vital to the purpose for which we went ■ 
there. It is a great mistake to suppose that we have taken out of the 
hands of the Egyptian Government the whole important administration 
of the country. AYe have done nothing of the sort. We have only 
conveyed to the Egyptian Government at a serious crisis the clear know- 
ledge of this fact, that our military occupation entails upon ns the 
obligation and duty (Avhere we have no doubt as to the right and pro- 
priety of the thing to be done or as to its importance) of seeing that, if 
we are to remain in the country, the course which we recommend shall 
be adopted. It is true that upon all these vital points we have taken 
and shall continue to take all the power necessary for our purpose. We 
do not seek more ; we should think it wrong to take it. We are under 
engagements earnestly to support the Khedive. We think it would be a 
most unfortunate policy, were we to show indifference in the matter. 
We cannot concur with those gentleman who say we sliould sweep the 
Egyptian Government away, and govern the country by English func- 
tionaries. I am not willing to nndertake a thing which would result in 
setting np any sentiment adverse to foreign domination ; and, though 
we will firmly and resolutely go np to the point when necessity calls us, 
we will not willingly go beyond that point. I must remind the House 
that the difficult, onerous, and inconvenient — some may think it the 
almost hopeless — task which we have undertaken, is that, first, of 
putting down disorder in Egypt, and then of establishing at least some 
beginnings of tolerable government. The task is also one of consider- 
able delicacy. It is one which we are executing not alone on our own 
behalf, but on behalf, I may say, of civilised mankind. We undertook 
it with the approval of the Powers of Europe, the highest and most 
authentic organ of modern Christian civilisation ; but having undertaken 
it at their invitation or with their concurrence, we must fulfil it as we 
received it from them. I know sometimes the word protectorate is 



A Vote of Censure. 107 



spoken of ; if it is not spoken of in its technical sense, and it is only 
meant by that that we must have full and plenary power to do what our 
purpose rec[nires in Egypt, I agree with it. But it is a dangerous word, 
because it has a technical and a legal meaning. I may remind the 
House that we have ourselves held a protectorate. We had a protecto- 
rate over the Ionian Islands, but that protectorate Avas imposed upon us 
by the united voice of the Powers of Europe ; and even now Austria in 
Bosnia, having taken over the administration of that province and 
Herzegovina, has done so by the united voice and invitation of the 
Powers of Europe. The point is a sufficiency of control, and it is to 
that, therefore, that we shall look. We conclude it to be absolutely 
included in the purpose of our mission, and we should go beyond what 
the purpose required were we to insist on more than that. I may 
remind the House of an analogy I think worthy of their notice — I mean 
the analogy of the Indian Protected States, Now, sir, in the case of 
these States, our power is, I may say, absolute. We are under no 
restraint of European law. Those States are endavls within our own 
dominions. Our intervention becomes a matter of absolute practical 
necessity, but what do we do ? We send an agent there and take care 
that he shall have all the power necessarj^ for efficiency. But we take 
care also that he shall have no more. We leave in its native vigour and 
its dignity before the people of those countries the native Administra- 
tion, which, depend npon it, they love far more than foreign domination. 
Few, indeed, are the peoples so degraded and so lost to every noble 
sentiment that it shall be a matter of indifference to them whether they 
are governed by persons who belong to the same political constitution 
v/ith themselves, or whether they are governed by those who come from 
a remote quarter, with foreign instincts, foreign syrapathies, and foreign 
objects. Such was our case in Egypt until we came to the month of 
November last year. 

THE SOUDAN. 

Now I pass to the Soudan. And there I will take three periods — 
first, the period before the defeat of Hicks ; next, the period between 
the defeat of Hicks and the defeat of Baker ; and then the period which 
I admit the House has the right to scrutinise most narrowly, namely, 
that between the 5th of February, last week and the 12tli of February, 
on which I have the honour of addressing the House. Now I directly 
traverse the assertion of the right lion, gentleman with regard to the 
period before the defeat of Hicks Pacha. I have already observed there 
was not a word of his accusations that bore upon the question of vacilla- 
tion or inconsistency at all, and I am not now going to discuss his motion 
at all. I hope, sir, I shall not be called to order, because if I am dis- 
cussing a matter not contained in the motion before the House, I am 
bound to say the same objection may be taken to every word of the 
speech of the right hon, gentleman. Sir, what the right hon. gentleman 
charged upon us was false policy. I told you why he does not venture 
to put it into his motion. If he did, he would be bound to show a true 
policy. What true policy has he shown to-night ? What approach to 
it ? — what sketch, what shadow, what outline, what shred or patch to 



108 Speeches o^ Right Hon, William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

one 1 It is all very well to say that what we have done is wrong. But 
notwithstanding the ingenious efforts of the right hon. gentleman to 
shirk pointing out to ns any tiling like a policy, there are certain indica- 
tions which it is difficult for him to efface from critical remark. He 
says we are greatly responsible for these disasters, that we cannot (and 
in this I quite concur) escape responsibility by saying we are not respon- 
sible, and then came in his simile of the pistol. He never pointed out 
to us what the pistol was. He did not explain his own parallel, and I 
suspect it would rather puzzle him to do so. What the right hon. 
gentleman contended was virtually this — that we ought to have taken 
into our own hands the business of advising Egypt upon the war. He 
began by saying that we ought to have seen that Egypt was supplied 
with such an army of her own as would have carried on the war with 
effect. 

Sir S. NoRTHCOTE — I did not say that we ought to have supplied an 
army. 

Mr. Gladstone — I am sj)eaking now, not of a British arni}^, but that 
in our reformatory operations in Egypt we ought to have included the 
provision of such an army — of such Egyptian army. Now, I affirm 
most distinctly that we ought not, and that if we had done so we should 
have undertaken what was impossible, what was unreasonable, what was 
beyond our position of competency, and what was probably unjust. It 
is all very well for the right hon. gentleman to point to the smallness of 
Sir E. Wood's army and to say that a larger army would have been 
requisite in order to send to General Hicks the supplies which, when 
unhappily he got into difficulties, he came to want. How were these 
men to be supplied, sir 1 Where were the funds to supply them 1 Is 
Egypt so rich a country ? Egypt is in financial difficulties. Egypt was 
long ago — when the right hon. gentleman had to do with it himself — in 
financial difficulties. The financial difficulties were then the excuse for 
our most unfortunate intervention. But I say that this was impossible, 
for Egypt had no means to constitute such an army. 

Mr. BouRKE — They were obliged. 

Mr. Gladstone — They found the means of constituting Hicks' army, 
but that is not the charge ; and I hope when the right hon. gentleman 
interrupts me he will not do so for a purpose of forcing me to circum- 
locution. The charge is, that it ought to have been a better and more 
considerable army, able to meet the wants of Hicks when he had under- 
taken this charge. That is the charge which I traverse by a direct 
denial, and by saying, in the first .place, it was impossible to constitute 
such an army. Even had it been possible to constitute such an army, 
when we received from the Powers of Europe our commission with 
regard to Egypt, we received no such commission with regard to the 
Soudan. 

Sir S. NoRTHCOTE — ^Where is the commission ? 

Mr. Gladstone — The commission is in the records of the Conference 
at Constantinople, immediately before the operations in Egypt ; and I 
may also say that it was quite sufficiently recited in the speech of the 
right hon. gentleman to-night, when he spoke of the relations which the 
Powers of Europe had assumed towards the work we had in Egypt. In 



A Vote of Censure. 109 



that work, in tlieir view, there was no question of conducting the Coli- 
quest or re-conquest of the Soudan. But has the right hon. gentleman 
made up his mind with regard to the relations between Egypt and the 
Soudan ? Has he ever considered what the Egyptian people think of 
the Soudan 1 Is he aware that, if there is one thing that the Egyptian 
has in horror more than another, it is being called upon to carry on the 
war in the Soudan ? Is he aware that the army of Sir E. Wood was 
organised expressly without the obligation to serve in the Soudan '? And 
if he is aware of these things, what does he mean by saying that it was 
our business to constitute a sufficient Egyptian army to supply the 
demands of Hicks Pacha as these might grow under the necessities of 
the time, and to enable Egypt to re-conquer the Soudan ? 

WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RE-CONQUEST OF THE SOUDAN. 

But what is the case of the Soudan ? The other night, when I was re- 
ferring to a paragraph in which something had been said about the Mahdi, 
I entirely declined to give any opinion about the Mahdi. I know this, and 
now I am speaking in conformity with the opinions of the man whom I 
look upon as by far the highest authority on the subject — I mean the 
opinions of General Gordon — the Soudan is a vast country, equal in size 
to Erance, Germany, and Spain, a desert country, as he states, with a 
deadly climate, inhabited thinly by sparse and warlike tribes, but still 
it is the country of those tribes. They love it as their country. The 
right hon. gentleman seems to me to have made up his mind — his whole 
speech shows it — that Egypt is in the right in subjecting that country, 
and in sending Turks, Circassians, and Anatolians to govern it. Sir, I 
have not made up my mind to any such thing. I decline to enter into 
that controversy. We have refused — and I believe the House will 
approve our refusing — to have anything to do with the re-conquest of 
the Soudan. During all my political life, I am thankful to say that I 
have never opened my lips in favour of a domination such as that which 
has been exercised by certain countries upon certain other countries, 
and I am not going now to begin. I look upon the possession of the 
Soudan— I won't say as a crime — that would be going a great deal too 
far — but I look upon it as the calamity of Egypt. It has been a drain 
on her treasury, it has been a drain on her men. I believe it is esti- 
mated that a hundred thousand Egyptians have laid down their lives 
in endeavouring to maintain that barren conquest, and at this moment, 
when your sympathies have been justly excited on behalf of 500 men, 
in Tokar and in behalf of 500 men who were in Sincat, there are nine 
and twenty thousand Egyptian soldiers, or soldiers in the service of the 
Khedive, scattered over that enormous region. In those circumstances 
I utterly repudiate and repel the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman, 
that it was our duty to construct a military system for Egypt by which 
— I am supposing now that she had the means which she had not — she 
would have been able to re-establish in its fulness the re-conquest of 
the Soudan. The right hon. gentleman has challenged me to-night. I 
challenge him. He asks us to pronounce on vacillation and inconsis- 
tency, and we are ready to pronounce upon it. I ask him to put into 
a i^iotion that -yvhicl^ was the pith and essence of his speech to-night — 



110 Speeches of Right Hon. V/illiain Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

namely, that the Egyptian military system ought to have been consti- 
tuted for the full support of Hicks and the re-conc[uest of the Soudan— 
and to take the judgment of the House upon it. 

Sir S. NoRTHCOTE. — I never said anything of the sort. 

Mr. Gladstone. — The right hon. gentleman does not seem very fond 
of responsibilit}^ as to the meaning of what he says. What were his 
touching pictures of the inhuman conduct of Sir E. Malet, who would 
not give a little advice to General Hicks ? Does the right hon. gentle- 
man think that it v/as in our power to advise General Hicks as to the 
conduct of the war without becoming responsible for the war 1 I say 
that responsibility for the war directly follov/ed upon our undertaking 
to advise as to the conduct of it. The right hon. gentleman thinks not. 
That is the very dignified course he would take. To say, "Hicks, you 
should march here, and Hicks, you should march there." Yes ; to say 
here to go and there to advance, and if he advanced and succeeded we 
should have the credit ; if he advanced and failed — oh " No, no,'' says 
the noble lord [Lord R. Churchill] opposite — we are not at all respon- 
sible. We could not advise without becoming responsible. Well, I 
do not stand alone upon that, because the House will recollect that in 
the most distinct manner the right hon. gentleman constructed the first 
division of his speech upon the insufficiency of the Egyptian army, 
which we had created, or Avhich it was our duty to create, in order to 
enable this war to be carried on. 

Sir S. NoETHCOTE. — Or to limit the purpose to which it was to be 
applied. 

Mr. Gladstone. — I will follow the right hon. gentleman—" or to 
limit the purpose to which it was to be applied." I examine his words. 
What do they mean 1 They mean the shattering of the Egyptian 
Government. The Egyptian Government was determined to adhere 
to the whole of the Soudan, and I cannot much blame them. They had 
been for sixty years in jjossession of it. They had struggled to hold it. 
The success of Hicks was remarkable. On almost every occasion he had 
defeated the Mahdi, and I believe the Egyptian Government would have 
laughed in our faces if we had attempted to force upon them the 
abandonment of the Soudan. We had no business to enforce our 
counsels upon the Egyptian Government, except in cases which we 
knew to be essential for our purposes in Egypt. How did the right 
hon. gentleman know, or how did we know, when the Mahdi was driven 
back at every point, that the Egyptian Government would not be able 
to hold its own ? He says we ought to have restricted the limits of the 
shattered Egyptian Government, because it did not conform to our views 
in giving up what was no essential x^art of the Egypt in which we 
interfered. Well, we should have again become responsible for the 
retention of that part, as we should have given Egypt her charter to 
that part, and that part would have been just as liable to the fear of 
foreign domination as the rest. I decline — and let the right hon. gentle- 
man get the House to censure us for it if he likes — to become a party to 
maintain that foreign domination. 

Well, I think I have shown that it was not our mission to deal 
with the Soudan at all, and, if we had £\,dvised upon the conduct 



A Vote oj Censiire. Ill 



of th.e war, we should have inevitably become responsible for a war, 
when Egypt was perfectly impotent to do more than she did, which 
was to create the army which Hicks Pacha thought sufficient. But 
the right hon. gentleman read it out, and now a right hon. gentle- 
man sitting by his side contradicts him. We have every reason to 
believe that the people of Egypt — not the ruling classes, but the people 
— detest this war, while we have very great reason to doubt whether 
this war is based on those considerations of honour and interest, 
and just necessity and regard for the welfare of the governed, which 
alone can render any war tolerable or endurable for a moment in the 
sight of a Christian. 

I think I have pretty well gone through what the right hon. gentle- 
man has said upon the subject. He referred to Lord Dufferin's opinion 
about the limits to which the Soudan ought to be restricted, and I refer 
to that opinion because it is a matter of great weight. I am sorry it did 
not weigh with the Egyptian Government. It was the opinion of an 
intelligent friend, though not of a responsible Government, for Lord 
Dufferin did not speak on our behalf. But the rejection of that opinion, 
combined with the high estimation in which the Egyptian Government 
held Lord Dufferin, is a clear proof of the importance which they 
attached to the holding of the Soudan and that it was not possible for 
us to interfere with them, until it has been irresistibly shown that for 
them to attempt to hold the Soudan would be an insane sacrifice of the 
best interests of Egypt, 

''abandon the SOUDAN." 

Sir, I am very much obliged to the House for the patience with which 
they have heard me thus far, and I am glad to say that I am making 
progress. After the defeat of Hicks — this is the second period— our 
position was enth-ely changed. "We deemed that that defeat — esj)ecially 
when it was followed up by a second defeat — the knowledge of which 
reached us about three weeks later — was a distinct proof that it was 
impossible to hold the Soudan in any manner tolerably satisfactory ; and 
that consequently it was our duty to speak frankly and boldly upon the 
matter, because the Soudan had assumed a question not of £100,000 a 
year, as was the old story, but it had assumed a character such as to 
make it evident that, if the struggle were to be continued, it would suck 
the life blood from the heart of Egypt. 

I will now give the House very rapidly and succinctly the course of 
events simply by dates. On the 19th November came the first report 
of the defeat of Hicks. On the 20th November we thought that, sup- 
posing that news to be true, we were at once justified in saying to our 
agent, " If consulted, recommend the abandonment of the Soudan within 
certain limits." On the 21st we came to know the defeat of Hicks. 
There were subsequently rumours casting doubt upon it, but we believed 
it on the 2Lst. Tlie Government then had to consider it, and consider 
the very grave measure of interrupting the course of the withdrawal of 
our troops, which had down to that time in all its stages proceeded with 
perfect satisfaction. On the 25th we suspended the evacuation of Cairo. 
On the 26th we found we were unfortunately at issue with the Egyptian 



112 Speeches of Bight Hon William Ewart Gladstone, M.Pi 

Government. They were, in tlie first place, not so certain of the news 
as -we were. In the second place, they were contemphiting assistance 
from the Turkish Government, and that also was a very serious question. 
It was very difiicult to deny their right to contemplate assistance from 
Turkey, and very difficult under certain circumstances to deny the right 
of Turkey to give that assistance. But those were the reasons why \:e. 
could not proceed peremptorily in tlie matter. We found they were 
disposed, if they could, to hold the Soudan, and at any rate to wait a 
while for fuller ascertainment of the facts before they took a j)Ositive 
course. That was on tlie 26th of November. They determined to wait, 
and take in hand in some manner this communication with Turkey of 
which I am not sure tliat we are directly cognisant with the particulars. 
On the 8th of December came the second defeat. Tliat was a heavy 
blow succeeding a frightful blow ; and on the 12th of December the 
Egyptian Government at length stated that they were ready to be guided 
by us in respect of the Soudan. Did we vacillate or hesitate ? On the 
13th of December, the very next day, we telegraphed our deliberate 
decision that the Egyptian Government should withdraw from the 
Soudan, and should confine its eff"orts to maintaining the valley of the 
Nile as far as Assouan, which is the limit, I think, of Egypt proper, or 
at all events, if there were strong military reasons for their going further, 
as far as the Wady Hafit, which is farther up the valley. Well, I am 
not going to censure Cherif Pacha and his colleagues. Their difficulties 
were enormous. We know the self-love of a class holding dominions of 
this kind. But while making every allowance, we found with deep 
regret that on the 22nd of December the Egyptian Government were 
again hesitating. That created a very serious state of affairs. This 
shattering of the Egyptian Government was the only alternative left. 
Naturally, we desired to turn to every other alternative rather than 
resort to it, but we found it impossible to avoid something that an 
imfriendly critic would describe by that term. On the 4th of January 
our demand was made peremptorily ; on the 7th Cherif Pacha resigned, 
and on the 8th Nubar Pacha was appointed. He was in complete 
accord with tis, and on that day it was perfectly competent to the 
garrison of Khartoum to retire in safety, and, so far as we know, it is 
the case now. 

THE KHEDIVE ASSENTS. 

Here I have the pleasure of contradicting the statement made by the 
right hon, gentleman the member for King's Lynn, that the abandon- 
ment of the Soudan was contrary to the deliberate judgment of the 
Khedive. If he has read the papers on the table of the House, he 
would have found that, on the contrary, whatever prior leanings the 
Khedive might have had, (and of course the prior leaning of a sovereign 
is to keep his territory,) the deliberate judgment of the Khedive was in 
complete accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Now, 
my contention is, that we interfered to require the abandonment of the 
Soudan, as soon as we were justified in carrying up to that point what 
must be considered as a high-handed proceeding with regard to the 
interior administration of Egypt. But it may have occurred to many 



A Vote of Censure. 113 

that a long time liad elapsed after we had heard of the defeat of Hicks, 
and the time I am now speaking of ; and that all this time was lost. 
That would be an entire and absolute misconception, as I will point out. 
It was perfectly true, that in the region of political right principle, we 
were separated during that interval from the Egyptian Government. 
We at once adopted the policy of withdrawal. We had pressecl it first 
as friendly advice, we pressed it at last as an imperative injunction ; but 
during the whole interval between the first and last stage there were 
practical measures in progress upon which we are perfectly agreed, and 
which must have gone on precisely in the same manner, had Nubar 
Pacha been in office from the first day, instead of Cherif Pacha. ^ We 
were all agreed that measures should be taken for the extrication of the 
garrisons. The force of Baker Pacha, which has imfortunately been 
defeated, was organised for that purpose. The hon. member, with his 
supreme authority, scoffs at that statement ; and an impression has 
gone forth that Baker Pacha was sent as a sort of forlorn hope. The 
right hon. gentleman is not aware that my hon. friend, the Under- 
Secretary for India, happened to be in Egypt during the organisation of 
this force. Well, I will back my hon. friend, with some confidence in 
the match if it comes off. I am not going to make an extravagant 
assertion, but what I am going to say is this : that, when Baker Pacha 
set out, it will be obvious he was under no military obligation to 
undertake that business. He was not enlisted for that purpose, and was 
under no obligation for military service at all, unless he thought it a 
profitable and hopeful expedition. He was the head of the constabulary, 
and a constabulary is not organised— though the right hon. gentleman 
[Mr. BourkeJ seems to think it is— for marching into foreign countries. 
I have no doubt he was entreated to go ; I have no doubt the Egyptian 
Government greatly desired it : but what I say is, that he was under no 
military obligation to go, and I say, with the authority of my hon. 
friend, that Baker Pacha went with the belief, that the means at his 
command were adequate means for the immediate purpose he had in 
view. I am going to produce something else ; but I produce in the first 
instance my hon. friend, who is not deficient in the faculty of expressing 
himself when he has occasion to address the House. Baker Pacha had 
very great doubts, as I understand, citing my hon. friend, whether it 
would be in his power to effect the whole operation of relief from 
Souakim to Berber, and from Berber to Khartoum ; but he was very 
confident that his means were sufficient for the smaller operation of 
reaching Sincat. Here is a telegram of Sir Evelyn Baring's, dated 
February 2nd, 1884, three days only before the calamity which overtook 
Baker Pacha : " Baker telegraphs that he will advance to the relief of 
Tokar to-morrow, 3rd, with 3,200 men, and there is every chance of 
saccess." Perhaps the right hon. gentleman [Mr. Bourke] will likewise 
overthrow the authentic official information received from Sir E. Baring. 
I have shown, then, that, during the whole of this time, the expedition 
of Baker Pacha was in preparation and in progress, and that there was a 
reasonable expectation that that expedition would suffice, if not to get 
to Khartoum, at any rate to deal with cases like the case of Sincat and 
the case of Tokar. Well, that organisation removed a practical difficulty 



114 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

for the moment, and prevented its becoming necessary for lis to shatter 
the Egyptian Government at the earlier j)eriod, which the right hon. 
gentleman [Sir S. Northcote] seems at once emphatically to desire, and 
resolutely and positively to condemn. That brings me to the 5th of 
February, and the failure of Baker's efforts. 

" WHAT IS GENERAL GORDON ? " 

I have gone through now, 1 think, all that relates to the speech of the 
right hon, gentleman ; but I must say a few words on the remaining 
j)eriod of five days, on which I admit we are justly open to a careful 
scrutiny. And here I arrive at the case of General Gordon. General 
Gordon, in our estimation, is a very great feature in the case. What is 
General Gordon'/ He is no common man. I thank the right hon. 
gentleman for the manner in which he referred to him. I may also say 
that General Gordon is not alone. Other very able men are with him — 
one in particular, Colonel Stewart, his seconder and coadjutor — and, in 
fact, we have acted all along on the principle of obtaining for this 
difficult Egyptian problem the very best services we could possibly get. 
It is no exaggeration, in speaking of General Gordon, to say that he is a 
hero. It is no exaggeration to say that he is a Christian hero. It is no 
exaggeration to say that in his dealings with Oriental j^eople he is also a 
genius — that he has a faculty of influence, or command, brought about 
by moral means, for no man in this House hates the unnecessary resort 
to blood more than General Gordon. He has that faculty which produces 
effects among those wild Eastern races almost unintelligible to us 
Western people. Perhaps it may be said : " If General Gordon has all 
these gifts, Avhy did you not employ him sooner ? " Again you have 
fallen into the decoy. You have not taken the least pains to ascertain 
whether it was possible or not. Now, the suggestion to employ General 
Gordon in the Soudan was made at a time so early, that it really is not 
within the limits of the direct responsibility of the present Government. 
As early as in the month of November, 1882, Sir Charles Wilson 
recommended the employment of General Gordon. But there were 
difficulties on both sides. It is very difficult to marry two people when 
one is averse, but it is still more difficult to marry them when, 
unfortunately, there is an aversion on both sides — and that, I believe, 
was found to be the case at that period between the Khedive and 
General Gordon. However, when it came to the grave period and to 
the increased responsibility upon us for the affairs of the Soudan that 
followed Hicks' defeat, then it was again our duty to have regard to the 
possibility of what might be got through General Gordon. 

Sir Stafford Northcote. — Was there anything between those 
periods ? 

Mr. Gladstone. — No, but the right hon. gentleman will see that I 
have been contending all along, that, down to the time of Hicks' defeat, 
we should not have been justified in interfering, to take into our own 
hands the management of the Soudan ; and it was already known to us 
that the Egyptian Government objected to General Gordon. On the 
1st of December Lord Granville had reason to believe he was in a 
condition to offer the services of General Gordon to the Egyptian 



A Vote of Censure. 115 



Goyernmeiit. Unfortunately they were refused, but not entirely without 
reason. The reason given was one that did not satisfy us, but still it 
went fa,r to silence us, as is often the case ; and I think the right hon. 
gentleman will find that to be the case too. The objection made to us 
was this : — " The Soudan is a country of strong Mohammedan fanaticism. 
For us to send a Christian as our agent, with a view to govern it, might 
be a dangerous course, which might cause a still more serious outbreak. '' 
We were not satisfied with the reason, but it was difficult to thrust that 
objection rudely aside, and it caused further delay. That was the ofler 
of Lord Granville on December 1st. But we became acquainted with 
the sentiments of General Gordon ; and, as time went on, the aversion 
of the Egyptian Government became mitigated, and at last entirely 
removed. However, it was not till the 16th of January — that is to say, 
eight days after Nubar Pacha came into office — that they sent to us a 
request for a qualified officer to undertake the conduct of the evacuation of 
the Soudan. That was sent to us on the 16th of January, and on the 18th 
General Gordon was on his way to Egypt. At Cairo General Gordon formed 
his plan. A paper will be laid on the table, I believe. We received General 
Gordon's plan first, in the shape of a valuable memorandum of his own, but 
we have had some doubts whether it was our duty to produce his plan. If 
we could have produced it to this House, or even to this country alone, it 
would have been another matter, but the promulgation of that plan through 
the telegraph in Egypt might have caused its failure. All I will say of 
it on this occasion — for I would rather not go into particulars about it — 
is, that it was evidently a well-reasoned and considered plan ; that it 
was entirely pacific in its basis ; that it proceeded on the belief, — a belief, 
which would have been fanatical or presumptuous in my case, or in the 
case of most of those in this House, but which in the case of General 
Gordon, with his experience and gifts, was, I believe, neither the one 
nor the other — not that he certainly must, but that he fairly might hope 
to, exercise a strong pacific influence by going to the right persons in 
the Soudan ; and it was his desire quite as much as ours that this 
should be done without any resort whatever to violent means. As I 
have said, General Gordon went, not for the purpose of re-conquering 
the Soudan or of persuading the chiefs of the Soudan again to submit 
themselves to the Egyptian Government. He went for the double 
purpose of evacuating the country by the extrication of the Egyptian 
garrisons and reconstituting it by giving back to those chiefs their 
ancestral powers, which had been withdrawn or suspended during the 
period of the Egyptian Government. I have told the House already 
that General Gordon had in view the withdrawal from the country of 
no less than 29,000 persons paying military service to Egypt. The 
House will see how vast was the trust placed in the hands of this 
remarkable person. We cannot exaggerate the importance we attach to 
it. We were resolved to do nothing which should interfere with this 
great pacific scheme, the only scheme which promised a satisfactory 
solution of the Soudanese difficulty by at once extricating the garrisons 
and reconstituting the country upon its own basis and its local privi- 
leges. It was our duty, whatever we might feel as to a particular 
portioii of the garrisons, to beware of interfering with Gordon's plans 



116 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M,P, 

generally, and, before we adopted any scheme that should bear that 
aspect, to ask whether in his judgment there would or would not be such 
an interference. 

THE DEFEAT OF BAKER PASHA. 

I will now explain to the House what we have been doing during the 
last seven days. February 5th, when the disaster happened to Baker 
Pacha, unfortunately found us cut off for a moment from communica- 
tion with Gordon. He had considered it his duty to take the shortest 
and swiftest means to convey himself to Khartoum, and that severed 
him from the telegraph, which runs up the course of the river. We 
resumed the telegraph on the 11th — on the morning of yesterday. We 
used our utmost endeavours to communicate with him at the earliest 
moment. We did not wait till we were coming near the time of his 
possibly reaching Berber, but we sent our messages from the very first 
moment when we thought there was a chance, being determined to anti- 
cipate the possibility of his arrival. We did that on Thursday or Friday 
of last week, and inquired from him what were his views after Baker 
Pacha's defeat. We had already taken certain measures. Our first duty 
was to recollect that the defeat of Baker Pacha altered the position of 
Suakim, and therefore we took measures, as rapidly as was in our power, 
to make Suakim safe. We further issued ^preliminary orders to the 
British ships that were going up and down the Ked Sea, in order to 
have them in readiness if any action should be found possible and 
advisable. When Baker Pacha was defeated, the case of Sincat was 
hopeless as to military help. It was known for a long time that the 
garrison had been in extremity. I have read a telegram which acquaints 
us that Baker Pacha was on the way to its relief, and that he had every 
hope of succeeding in that relief. No means that we could possibly use 
could have availed in the slightest degree to bring aid to Sincat, before 
the time when unhappily it fell. That was not a question of difficulty, 
but of absolute impossibility. There was another mode, as to which I 
believe Admiral Hewett and Sir E. Baring have been in communication. 
Admiral Hewett has endeavoured to see what could be done by negotia- 
tions for the extrication of the garrison. He failed, but this failure 
only became kno^vn to us about ten o'clock last night. I think it was 
reasonable and right that he should make the effort in the impossibility 
of any other effort that could be made. But we were bound to take 
into view this — would an attempt of relief in that quarter have the 
effect of endangering first of all the precious life of General Gordon, on 
which the whole hope of the solution of this question was depending 1 
would it also have the effect of endangering the measures for the extri- 
cation of the 29,000 men, who, after all, must be regarded of more 
weight than the 500 in Sincat ? We have at last heard by telegraph 
from General Gordon on that subject. Having reached Berber, he has 
received our messages, and we are satisfied from his replies that, although 
he does not like the use of military means, yet such an effort as might 
be made for the relief of Tokar would not in his view interfere with his 
safety or the likelihood of his success. He does not speak with enthu- 
siasm of anything of that kind, but he leaves upon us the entire respon» 



A Vote of Censure. 117 



sibility of such proceeding. In these circumstances we have not hesi- 
tated for a moment. Having "been put in possession, partly by evidence 
that reached us through Colonel Stewart, and now again since the House 
met hj telegraph from General Gordon, we have come to the resolution 
to gather immediately, with absolutely the utmost promptitude, a force 
— a British force — at Suakini, with the view if possible to the relief of 
Tokar, with the computation of its being sufficient for that purpose, if 
the garrison should be able to hold out. 

We have acted, therefore, without the smallest hesitation upon our 
own undivided responsibility for a purpose, which implies no departure 
whatever from our policy in regard to the re-conquest of the Soudan, 
but with the view of performing what I hope may be regarded as a 
simple service to humanity, which I am quite sure that this House and 
the country will not grudge. When I said yesterday that it was not a 
question of hours, my meaning was this : that our communications with 
ships would not have been in the slightest degree accelerated by having 
been made yesterday, and to-day, on the contrary, the position of the 
ships would enable us to do so. The House will therefore understand 
that our injunctions and directions have, as I trust, by this time reached 
the authorities in Egypt, and that their first efforts to give effect to them 
have probably been by this time taken. 

I think I have now stated distinctly what we have been about during 
the last week, and why we thought it wrong, without any reference to 
General Gordon, in his great and comprehensive plan, to pursue a pur- 
pose, which, although one of humanity, and one strongly appealing to 
the feeling of this country, yet concerned, after all, but a very limited 
portion of a very difficult and formidable undertaking. I stated that we 
took preliminary measures with a view to the increase of the force at 
Suakim. We have moved up troops from Malta in order to be in a con-* 
dition to put them forward for any purpose of this kind. 

Sir M. H. Beach.- — ^How many ? 

Mr. Gladstone. — I think it would be very much better that I should 
not enter upon that. We have had from Admiral Hewett, the best 
authority on the spot — no doubt he had consulted with others — a very 
distinct account of what he considered necessary for the relief of Tokar. 

Sir M. H, Beach. — I should not have put the question had it not 
been told that the number was stated in another place. 

Mr. Gladstone. ^ — I do not know whether the right hon, gentleman 
means the final or the initial number. I have been speaking of initial 
measures. If he means the final number, it will be a number somewhat 
in excess of the number considered by Admiral Hewett to be sufficient 
for the purpose. I believe it will be 4,000 men. I do not enter into 
the constituent parts, but I believe that will not be inexact in round 
numbers. 

Now, I have endeavoured to give the reasons why we have acted and 
why we did not act before. I revert to the motion of the right hon. 
gentleman. I hope it will be thought that I have not shrunk from 
grappling with it. If the House will vote for it — which I own I do not 
expect — it would be a singular case of voting for a motion, on beKalf of 
•which not a single word has be^n said by the mover, The right hon. 



118 Speeches oj Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

gentleman made imputations. Tliese imputations, if tliey imply any- 
thing at all — and the right hon. gentleman seems to say that they do 
not imply anything at all — imply that he desires and recommends a 
policy which we think alike opposed to prudence, to humanity, and to 
justice. I have thus stated the case of the Government. I make in few 
words my final appeal to the House of Commons, and I ask, from your 
indulgence it may be, but also from your justice, that acc[uittal which 
we feel we are entitled to claim. 



THE FEANCHISE BILL. 

{IN TEE EOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 28, 1884.) 

I CONCEIVE that this Bill, this proposition, may be presented to the 
House under any one, and indeed under all, of three distinct and several 
aspects. In the first place, it is on our part a redemption of a pledge, 
because, although 1 do not use the word " pledge " in its more narrow 
and objectionable sense, there is no doubt, I think, as regards the persons 
prominently concerned in conducting the affairs of the country in con- 
junction with the Liberal party, that at and before, as well as since, the 
last election they have constantly assured the country that they regarded 
the work of Parliamentary reform as a proper and vital part of the 
mission, so to speak, of the present Parliament, The proposition may 
be regarded, secondly, as intended to satisfy a desire, for our belief is that 
a desire for the extension of the household franchise to the counties is 
widely and generally entertained among the classes who are to be 
affected by that extension. But there is another aspect in which I for 
one should hope that it will still more pointedly and constantly be 
viewed. It is a proposal in satisfaction of a pledge. It is a proposal to 
meet a desire. But above all it is a proposal in my view, and I think I 
may say in our view, to add strength to the State. I am not prepared 
to discuss admission to the franchise as it was discussed fifty years ago, 
when Lord John Eussell had to state with almost bated breath that he 
expected to add in the three kingdoms half a million to the constituencies. 
It is not now a question of nicely calculated less or more. I take my 
stand on the broad principle that the enfranchisement of capable citizens, 
be they few or be they many — and if they be many so much the better 
— gives an addition of strength to the State. The strength of the modern 
State lies in the representative system. I rejoice to think that in this 
hai3py country and under this happy Constitution we have other sources 
of strength in the respect paid to various orders of the State, and in the 
authority they enjoy, and in the unbroken, course which has been allowed 



The Franchise Bill 119 



to most of our national traditions ; Lut still, in the main, it is the repre- 
sentative system which is the strength of the modern State in general, 
and of the State in this country in particular. Sir, I may say— it is an 
illustration which won't occupy more than a moment — that never has 
this great truth heen so vividly illustrated as in the war of the American 
Eepublic. The convulsion of that country between 1861 and 1865 was 
perhaps the most frightful which ever assailed a national existence. 
The efforts which were made on hoth sides were marked. The exertions 
by which alone the movement was put down were not only extraordinary, 
they were what would antecedently have been called impossible, ancl 
they were only rendered possible by the fact that they proceeded from 
a nation where every capable citizen was enfranchised and had a direct 
and an energetic interest in the well-being and the unity of the State. 

WHO ARE CAPABLE CITIZENS 1 

Sir, the only question that remains in the general argument is, who are 
capable citizens? and, fortunately, that is a question which, on the 
present occasion, need not be argued at length, for it has been already 
settled — in the first place by a solemn legislative judgment acquiesced 
in by both parties in the State, and in the second place by the experience 
of the last more than fifteen years. Who, sir, are the capable citizens of 
the State, whom it is proposed to enfranchise ? It is proposed in the 
main to enfranchise the county population on the footing, and according^ 
to the measure, that has already been administered to the population of 
the towns. What are the main constituents of the county population '? 
First of all, they are the minor tradesmen of the country, and the skilled 
labourers and artisans in all the common arts of life, and especially in 
connection with our great mining industry. Is there any doubt that 
these are capable citizens? You (the Opposition) have yourselves 
asserted it by enfranchising them in the towns, and we can only say 
that we heartily subscribe to the assertion. But besides the artisans 
and the minor tradesmen scattered throughout our rural towns we have 
also to deal with the peasantry of the country. Is there any doubt that 
the peasantry of the country are capable citizens, qualified for enfran- 
chisement, qualified to make good use of their power as voters 1 This 
is a question which has been solved for us by the first and second 
Eeform Bills, because many of the places which under the nanie of 
towns are now represented in this House are really rural communities, 
based upon a peasant constituency. For my part I should be quite 
ready to fight the battle of the peasant upon general and argumentative 
grounds. I believe the peasant generally to be, not in_ the highest 
sense, but in a very real sense, a skilled labourer. He is not a man 
tied down to one mechanical exercise of his physical powers.^ He is a 
man who must do many things, and many things which require in him 
the exercise of active intelligence. But as I say, it is not necessary to 
argue on that ground, first of all because we have got his friends here, 
from whom we must anticipate great zeal for his enfranchisement ; and 
secondly, because the question has been settled by legislative authority 
in the towns, and by practical experience. If he has a defect it is that 
he is too ready, perhaps, to work with and to accept the influence of his 



120 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ilwart Gladstone, M.P. 

-superiors — sn]3eriors, I mean, in. worldly station. But that is the last 
defect that you (the Opposition) will be disposed to plead against him, 
and it is a defect that we do not feel ourselves entitled to plead, and 
that we are not at all inclined to plead. We are ready to take him as 
he is, and joyfully bring him within the reach of this last and highest 
privilege of the Constitution. 

WHOLESALE DISFRANCHISEMENT. 

There is only one other word, sir, to add on this part of the 
subject. The present position of the franchise is one of greater and 
grosser anomaly than any in which it has been lieretolbre placed, 
because the exclusion of persons of the same class and the same de- 
scription is more palpable and more pervading than before, being, in 
fact, spread over the whole country, persons being excluded in one place 
while the same persons are admitted in another. I wish just to call the 
attention of the House to an important fact connected with this part of 
the question which is of frequent occurrence. It is a thing which the 
House detests, and which we in this Bill shall endeavour to avoid — 
namely, the infliction of personal disfranchisement. Observe how the 
present state of the franchise law brings this about. It is known and 
well understood that a labourer must follow his labour. Where his 
labour goes, where the works go in which he is employed, he must 
follow. He cannot remain at a great distance from them ; and the 
instance I will give — and though I am not personally conversant with 
it, I believe there is no doubt about the fact — is an instance which I 
think singularly applicable. It is that of the ship-building works on 
the Clyde. Those works were within the precincts of the city of 
Glasgow, and the persons who laboured in them were able to remain 
within the city, being near their work, and at the same time to enjoy 
the franchise. But the marvellous enterprise of Glasgow, which has 
made that city the centre and crown of the ship-building business of the 
world, could not be confined within the limits of the city of Glasgow, 
and it moved down the river. As the trade moved down the river the 
artisans required to move down the river with it. That was a matter 
of necessity, and the obedience to that necessity involves under the 
]3resent law wholesale disfranchisement. That is an argument which is 
sufficient for disposing of the general question. The whole population, 
I rejoice to think, have liberty of speech, they have liberty of writing, 
they have liberty of meeting in public, they have liberty of private 
association, they have liberty of petitioning Parliament. All these 
privileges are not privileges taking away from us, diminishing our 
power and security, they are all of them privileges on the existence of 
which our security depends. Without them we could not be secure. I 
ask you to confer upon the very same classes the crowning privilege of 
voting for a representative in Parliament, and then I say we who are 
strong now as a nation and a State shall by virtue of that change be 
stronger still. 



The Franchise Bill. 121 



THE BOROUGH FRANCHISE. 

I stall be obliged from the circumstances in which I stand to deal 
with this subject on its affirmative and on its negative side. I shall 
endeavour to explain to the House, without undue detail and without 
affecting too much of legal and technical precision, what are the pro- 
visions contained in the Bill that I propose on the part of the Govern- 
ment to introduce. But it will be equally necessary for me to dwell 
upon proposals which some have expected, and some have desired to 
see in the Bill, but which the Bill does not contain ; because what I 
have to say upon that subject is vital to all hope of carrying what is 
contained in the Bill. Now I have considered what would be the most 
convenient course of exposition to the House, and I have arrived at this 
conclusion — I wish to fix and fasten your attention in the first place 
upon the borough franchise as it exists in England, because the borough 
franchise as it exists in England, with the modifications which we 
propose to introduce into it, and which I will immediately proceed to 
explain, is the hinge of the whole Bill. Upon that borough franchise 
the entire structure holds as respects not only England, but likewise 
as respects Scotland, and as respects Ireland. The borough franchise, 
as it is, is three-folcf. I put entirely out of sight what are sometimes 
called the " ancient-right " franchises — the case of freemen, the case of 
liverymen, the case of burgess tenure, and whatever other miscellaneous 
franchises there are surviving under the old system. I put them aside, 
for they are not touched by the Bill for reasons which I will afterwards 
explain. Setting these aside, then, the borough franchise is three-fold. 
It consists, in the first place, of enfranchised occupiers of buildings of 
,£10 clear annual value, with or without land. That was the franchise 
established by the Act of 1832. It consists, in the second place, of 
inhabiting occupiers of rated dwelling-houses. That is the franchise 
established and extended by the Acts of 1867, 1868, and 1869, and is the 
principal borough franchise of the country. The third branch of the 
borough franchise is the lodger franchise. So much for the present 
borough franchise in England. 

THE SERVICE FRANCHISE. 

Now I come to the future borough franchise which we propose. We 
leave the " ancient-right " franchises, as I have already said, exactly as 
they now are. We touch them in no way. We leave the household 
franchise established by the Act of 1867 exactly as it is now. We 
leave the lodger franchise exactly as it is now. But we do two 
things notwithstanding. First of all, for reasons which are x^^rtly 
of principle and partly with a view to unity, we extend the £\0 
clear yearly value franchise to cases where the occupation is of land 
without houses or buildings. At present it may be for houses or 
buildings alone, or houses or buildings with land. We extend it 
to land alone without buildings. There is a more important change 
which we propose to introduce, and it is also in the direction of 
extension. We propose to establish a new franchise, which I should 
call — till a better phrase be discovered — the service franchise. It will 



122 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

"be given to persons wlio are inhabitants, and in the sense of inhabitancy, 
who are occnpiers. The present law restricts, I believe, tiie signifi- 
cation of the term " occnpiers " to those who are either owners or 
tenants. Our object is to provide a franchise for those inhabitants who 
are neither owners nor tenants ; but they must be householders in this 
sense — either, in the first place, that they are actual inhabitants ; or, in 
the second place, that there is no other inhabitant with them, super- 
seding them or standing in the same position with them ; and in the 
third place, they must either be inhabitants of an integral house or else 
of that separate part of a house which, at any rate, so far as England is 
concerned, has already been declared to be a house for electoral pur- 
poses. Hon. gentlemen are aware of the general reasons which may be 
pleaded in favour of this enlargement. It is an enlargement abso- 
lutely required by the principle of tliis Bill, because the principal and 
central idea of this Bill is to give every householder a vote. The house- 
holder is just as much a householder, and has just as much the respon- 
sibility of a householder, whether he is in the eye of the law an owner 
or a tenant, or whether he is not, provided he is an inhabitant in the 
sense I have described. And this service franchise is a far-reaching 
franchise. It goes to men of high class, who inhabit valuable houses, as 
the officers of great institutions. It descends to men of humble class, 
who are the servants of the gentry, or the servants of the farmer, or the 
servants of some other employer of labour who are neither owners 
nor tenants, and who, in many cases, cannot be held as tenants, in con- 
sequence of the essential conditions intended to be realised through 
their labours, but who fully fulfil the idea of responsible inhabitant 
householders. The House will, therefore, see that in the future borough 
franchise, if our proposals be adopted, there will be a four-fold occupa- 
tion or householding franchise — the old clear yearly value franchise 
of the Act of 1832, the lodger franchise of the Act of 1867, the service 
franchise of the Act (as I trust) of 1884, and there will be what is the 
most important of them all — the household franchise proposed in 1867, 
and developed from its original narrow and stunted proportions, partly by 
the votes of this House, and partly by subsequent Acts of Parliament, 
into what it is now — namely, the principal franchise ot the cities and 
towns of this country. If lion, gentlemen will be good enough to 
retain in their minds this fourfold occupation franchise — the principal 
and almost exclusive basis of the franchise in English boroughs hereafte 
— they will have laid down a fixed standing point, from which they 
will be easily able to follow me in everything which I have further to 
explain. 

THE PRESENT COUNTY FRANCHISE. 

I pass from the boroughs of England to the counties of England. The 
present county franchise I shall describe without any attempt at 
technical precision, but in popular terms, and I throw it into three 
classes. There is, first of all, the £50 rental franchise of occupiers 
introduced under what was called the Chandos clause in the Act of 
18o2, and next to this the ^£ 12 rating franchise of occupiers introduced 
by the Act of 1867. These are different in their minute conditions. 



The Franchise BUI 123 



although they are alike in certain of these conditions, and in this con- 
dition particularly — that neither the one nor the other requires resi- 
dence, and yet that they both of them fall under the condition of occupa- 
tion franchise. The third description of the voter in the county is the 
voter in respect of xDroperty. Here again I shall not descend into detail, 
but simply say that by the voter in respect of property I mean the man 
who votes in respect of a freehold, in respect of a copyhold, or in 
respect of a leasehold. That is the present county franchise. 

THE NEW FRANCHISE. 

And now you will ask, how do we propose to deal with it ? We 
propose to proceed as follows — I name the minor changes first. The 
first of these changes in one which is really intended for no other pur- 
pose than that of practical convenience and simplicity. It is, that we 
propose to abolish the ^50 franchise, which I shall call for convenience 
sake the £50 rental franchise. I propose to abolish it because two 
categories of franchise where only one is necessary are highly incon- 
venient in the rate books and registration of the country, and because 
we believe it is hardly possible that there will be any man entitled to 
this J50 rental franchise who will not come mthin the county franchise 
as we propose it for the future. The second change we propose is to 
reduce the figure of the rating franchise of 1867 fuom £12 rateable value 
to £\0 clear yearly value. Those who hear me are aware that that will 
be a reduction greater in amount than the mere difference between £12 
and £10, and it will appear, I think, as I proceed further, why it is that 
we propose to place this franchise on the basis of the clear yearly value 
rather than on the basis of the rateable value — namely, because we 
thereby get a definition which we think will run tolerably well through 
the three countries. Sir, to this franchise we do not propose to attach 
the condition of residence. These, as I have said, are the minor changes. 

But I now come to the main change of the Bill. It is this. I 
have said there were four occupation franchises in boroughs, one of 
them the £10 clear yearly value, the other three, the household, the 
lodger, and the service franchise. These three we propose to import 
into the counties precisely as they are to be in the boroughs. Now 
I hope that will be clearly understood, because I wish to fasten 
attention upon it, as it is the main, the most operative, and the most 
extensive, perhaps I should also say the most beneficial change that is 
proposed. 

Well, then, with regard to the property franchises, I will not dwell 
upon them at length, but I will simply for the present say this much : 
We maintain the property franchises in principle, but we propose pro- 
visions which we think are necessary in order to secure them against 
abuses which are known in many parts of the country, and which in 
some parts are grievous and menacing to the people. Now I wish to 
keep together all that relates to the question of occupation. Sir, a 
fundamental part of the structure of this Bill is the union of the three 
kingdoms in one measure, and essentially, so far as we without undue 
complexity can achieve it, not only in one measui^e, but in one and the 
same franchise. 



124 SpeecheB of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

SCOTLAND. 

I pass from England to tlie case of Scotland, which is a comparatively 
simple case. My first observation with respect to Scotland, which I 
beg hon. members from Scotland to bear in mind, is that we leave 
Scotland everything she at present possesses. She has certain pecu- 
liarities, and especially in regard to the borough franchise ; it is not 
necessary for me to enter upon them now, but everything that is peculiar 
to Scotland will be left as it is. In the second j)lace, we import the 
service franchise into Scotch boroughs, [the Scotch boroughs being 
already possessed of the lodger and the household franchise, and likewise 
the £10 clear yearly value franchise. In that way we establish an identity 
of franchise between Scotch and English boroughs, with the exception of 
those small peculiarities which we find in either country. I have done 
now with the Scotch boroughs. As regards the Scotch counties the case 
is pretty simple. We follow the line already laid down for English 
counties, and we propose to absorb in Scotland, as in England, the 
£bO rental franchise, which we believe will be quite unnecessary, and 
will be absorbed in what is now the £14 rated franchise. We propose to 
reduce that ,£14 rated franchise to the £10 clear yearly value franchise, as 
in England. We also import into Scotch counties the three franchises 
which they at present want, as the English counties want them — the 
household, the lodger, and the service franchises. The House will thus 
understand that we have got to a virtual identity of the franchise, 
with small and insignificant exceptions, as between Scotland and 
England. 

IRELAND. 

The case of Ireland is rather more complicated, but with the patient 
kindness of the House I am sure there will be no difficulty in explaining 
what we propose to do. The present borough franchise in Ireland is 
twofold. In the first place there is the £4 rating franchise, but that 
franchise is not subject to the limitation of the £10 clear yearly value 
franchise, as in England — viz., that it must consist either of buildings, 
or of buildings and land. It is a franchise which may exist witli 
respect to land alone. Besides that £4 rating franchise, there is the 
lodger franchise. With regard to the borough franchise in Ireland, for 
the future, we propose to leave the lodger franchise as it is now. With 
regard to the £4 rating franchise I think it will convey the clearest 
idea if I say that we propose to abolish it ; and there will be a 
franchise, according to our plan, dependent upon value, and it will be 
a franchise of £10 clear yearly value, retaining all the other conditions 
of the £4 rating franchise, and identical with the £10 clear yearly value 
franchise in England and Scotland, except that each of the three countries 
has its own separate method of ascertaining what the clear yearly value 
is, with which we don't propose to interfere. We leave the lodger 
franchise as it is, and we import into Irish boroughs the service franchise 
and the household franchise, which is the great thing we have in view, 
precisely as in England. 

With respect to the Irish counties, the matter is simple. We there 



The Franchise Bill. 125 



have to deal with, a franchise analogous to the £12 rating franchise in 
England. We simply reduce the county francliise in Ireland to one of 
^10 clear yearly value, without altering its conditions in other respects. 
This is in itself a small change. Having done that, we introduce the 
great change in Ireland which we propose in England and in Scotland, 
and we establish in Irish counties, as in Scotland and England, in the 
first place the lodger franchise, in the second place the service franchise, 
and in the third place, and far above all, the household francliise. The 
House, I think, will see, therefore, in the first place, how far we have 
gone towards the identification of borough and county franchise, and, 
in the second place, that we have gone the whole length that it was 
possible to go in the identification of the franchise in the three king- 
doms, and it is a vital and essential part of our measure that they should 
be treated upon a footing of perfect political equality. 

I have done now with the occupation franchises ; and the reason why 
i have separated them from the property franchises is this— that occu- 
pation will inevitably be under the new system the ground and main 
foundation of our electoral system. Now, the property franchises will 
and must be few in number. The legitimate property franchises may 
be, perhaps, somewhat fewer than now, but they must be fewer in 
number in comparison with the occupation franchises. It is not possible 
to estimate with precision what proportion of our franchises hereafter 
will be occupation franchises ; but I certainly for myself could not 
place the proportion of occupying franchises to property franchises, 
under the operation of this measure, at a lower rate than five as compared 
to one. 

PROPERTY FRANCHISE. 

Now I come to the question of property franchise in English counties. 
Scotland and Ireland are also equally affected, so I shall not make 
separate statements with regard to them. As I have said, the property 
franchises in our English counties are freehold, copyhold, and leasehold. 
We propose that they shall in principle remain ; and the first question 
that arises is, Shall they, or shall they not, be made subject to the con- 
dition of residence ? We are of opinion, sir, that upon the whole it is 
not necessary that they should be subjected to the condition of residence. 
There is a sort of show about the old English electoral law, as if its 
original principle made residence a condition of the property franchise, 
which was then the exclusive county franchise. But we do not find 
that that idea bears scrutiny. The two matters of fact to which alone 
I need refer are first of all the dictum of Lord Coke, delivered in 1620, 
which governed the action of the House of Commons, and governed the 
practice thereafter. I won't enter into a detail of the case ; but Lord 
Coke's declaration — and the House of Commons acted upon it — was 
that residence was not enforced as a condition of the property franchise, 
according to the usage established in this coimtry. And so it contmued, 
and matters continued to be regulated upon that footing for a great 
length of time until we arrive at the reign of George III. and the 
Ministry of Lord North. In the time of that Ministry, but not by the 
action of that Ministry, and not under the influence of that Ministry, 



126 SpeecJuB of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M,P. 

but apparently by tlie spontaneous action of the House of Commons 
itself, a Bill was introduced, which finally and formally dissociated 
residence from the exercise of the franchise in respect of property. That 
is the state of things we find established, and which, so far as residence 
is concerned, we propose to leave. We in no way alter the law of 
residence, but we do feel that it is quite necessary to make provision 
against abuses. Those abuses are undoubtedly connected in a great 
degree with non-residence. I think that if we compare the number 
of non-resident voters in counties generally with the total county 
constituencies, we shall find that they are about one-eleventh, part. 
But I am familiar with the case of a county where the non-resident 
voters are one-fourth part of the constituency. I need not explain to 
the House what kind of voters they are, or by what process they have 
appeared upon the roll of county electors, nor will I go into further 
detail to justify at this moment the propositions which we shall be 
amply able to justify, should they be questioned. At present my 
object is to lay clearly before the House our proposal, rather than to 
support and defend it in detail. 

FAGGOT VOTES, 

We propose, then, sir, two enactments. In the first place, we propose 
to disqualify, with due exceptions, those incorporeal hereditaments 
which are, or readily may be, employed for the creation of fictitious 
votes. Those incorporeal hereditaments may be classed under two 
principal categories ; in the first of these categories are rent charges ; 
and in the second, are feus, head rents, and the like, where there is no 
reversion to the person who takes the benefit of the feu or head rent. 
Well, sir, we think that it is manifest that there is one just exception, 
and that is the exception of the tithe rent-charge of a parish held 
in single ownership. If we do not retain the condition of single owner- 
ship, tithe-rent charge, made, as it is, on every field, would evidently 
become favourable to the creation of fictitious votes, not in Scotland, 
where they are not so happy as to possess it, but in England. But the 
tithe-rent charge is usually held for the parish ; and the tithe-rent 
charge, not only because it is a very ancient property — perhaps the most 
ancient interest in land which exists in the country — but also because it 
is a rateable one— indeed, it has the quality of rateability more than any 
other description of property — we distinctly except, and hold that it 
should continue to qualify as now. That is one provision against incor- 
poreal hereditaments of the description I have named. There are other 
incorporeal hereditaments, rather numerous, I believe, in kind, but less 
significant and important, to which I need not refer. Then the other 
provision we propose to make is a provision against the sub-division of 
hereditaments. That is the other grand instrument by which this great 
operation, I might almost call it one of the staple manufactures of the 
country — the manufacture of votes — is conducted by the most skilled of 
all the capitalists who apply themselves to that particular work. I have 
in my possession a photograph of a hereditament, a certain structure not 
very imposing in itself, occupied by a single person and conferring one 
occupation franchise, but held by forty-five owners — every one of whom 



The Franchise Bill. 127 



stands on tlie register in virtue of his forty-fifth part of this building, 
which qualifies only a single occupation voter. But it is right and 
necessary that we should distinguish between subdivision for Parliamen- 
tary purposes and subdivision Avhich arises in the natural course of family 
transactions or of business ; and I may therefore say at once that \\ d 
except from our disqualifying provision as to subdivision, cases where 
the share of subdivided property is obtained by descent, by succession, 
by marriage, by marriage settlement, or by will. There is another case, 
an important' case, Avhich ought to be taken in view, and which will be 
provided for, but in another manner. There may be a case of a joint 
ownership for the purposes of trade or business, and it may be said that 
the persons having such joint ownership, and using it for trade or busi- 
ness, ought not to be disqualified ; nor will they be disqualified, because 
as joint occupiers they will be registered in respect of their trade or 
business. But we strike, and I hope strike effectually, at the fictitious 
vote, and by the fictitious vote I mean two descriptions of franchise — 
one where there is no real proprietary interest at all, but a naked domi- 
nion divested of every incident of dominion, and dependent merely on 
a life, and not always dependent on the life of the person himself who 
holds it, but dependent on some other's life. That is the worst, and 
what I may call the lowest, description of fictitious vote. But we also 
strike at fictitious votes where they have been secured through the 
machinery I have just been referring to, either of incorporeal hereditaments 
or of subdivision, and where there is no natural association with place ; 
because we hold that when Parliament gives the franchise to a certain 
county or a certain town, its meaning is that that franchise is to be exer- 
cised by the people who belong to it, and not by a set of strangers Avho 
come in by surreptitious means, overpowering the genuine constitutional 
majority by a foreign importation, or, to employ words that have lately 
been used, by an invasion from without. 

DISFRANCHISE NO ONE. 

Sir, I think the House will now see that the Bill I am proposing to 
introduce is substantially, though not technically, confined to one main 
view, one great provision — to give unity and completeness to the house- 
hold and occupation franchises throughout the United Kingdom. The 
principle upon which it proceeds is, that the head of every household, 
nnder the conditions of the law, shall vote, and we seek to go as far as 
we can to get the heads of households and enfranchise them. The 
lodger and service franchises we look upon simply as branches, I may 
call them enlargements, of the household franchise. It is, in point of 
fact, if it is to be described by a single phrase, a Household Franchise 
Bill for the United Kingdom ; and the popular idea has "not been far 
wrong which has seized upon the conception of it as a measure which is 
to extend to the counties what is now enjoyed by the towns, although in 
making that extension w-e endeavour to accompany it with some furtlier 
provisions for giving greater completeness in practical application to the 
idea of household franchise. Now, let me say shortly, we leave the 
" ancient-right" franchises alone. Let me say that we disfranchise per- 
sonally no one. Wherever there is a provision in the] Bill which would 



128 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

operate against the creation of franchises hereafter, identical in principle 
with some that now exist, we do not interfere with the right already 
legally acquired, however illegitimate it may seem to be. We leave the 
property vote alone, and confine ourselves to the endeavour to stop the 
extension of fictitious votes. 

NEVER A COMPLETE BILL. 

Well, sir, these are the matters which the Bill contains ; but all will 
feel that it is impossible for me on this occasion to pass by what the Bill 
does not contain. I am prepared for the complaint that this is not a 
complete Bill, and for the question, " Why don't you introduce a com- 
plete Bill 1 " On that I have some things to say which appear to me to 
be of very considerable force, but at any rate I will state them ; and the 
first thino- I will state is, that there never has been a complete Bill pre- 
sented to Parliament on this subject of Parliamentary Eeform. Never 
one. I make that assertion in the broadest way. There never has been 
a complete Bill presented to Parliament. Parliament has never at- 
tempted a complete Bill ; and, moreover, I will go a little further, and 
say that Governments and Parliaments would have committed a grievous 
error in judgment — I might almost say they would have been out of 
their senses — if they had attempted a complete Bill. There are diff'erent 
points in which a Bill may be complete. Was the Bill of 1831, or the 
Bill of 1832, a complete Bill 1 Why, sir, they touched England alone. 
And what was England alone at that time 1 Not greatly more than 
one-half the United Kingdom. At that time, in 1831, the population of 
Eno-land was under fourteen millions ; the population of Scotland and 
Irefand was over ten millions ; and Ireland and Scotland were left to 
the mercy of Parliament, and were not touched by the principle of 
what is justly called the Great Reform Bill. There was no such thing 
as a complete Bill on that occasion, and there never has been a complete 

Bill. 

Sir, there are three essential divisions of this great subject, and if we 
intend to deal with the subject as practical men, if we are endeavouring 
to pass a measure, and not to overlay and smother it, we must recognise 
the limitation which is imposed, not upon our will and choice, but upon 
our power, by the nature of the case and by the conditions under which 
Parliamentary government is now carried on. The first of these three 
great divisions is to define the right of the individual— that is, to fix the 
franchise. To fix the franchise is of itself an enormous task ; it is a 
question which may be led out, if you should think fit, into a score or 
scores of ramifications. But it is clearly one of principle— it is, to fix 
the rif^ht of the individual who shall be entitled to vote. The second 
branch of the question is to provide machinery for the exercise of 
that right, and that is the subject of registration. It lias never been 
found, as far as I am aware, practicable to unite this vital subject 
of ^ood registration with the subject of the francliise. The third 
is, to gather the persons whom Parliament judges to be capable of 
exercisino- the franchise with benefit to themselves and to the coun- 
try into local communities ; and that is the business of distribution 
of seats. 



The Franchise Bill. 129 



AIM ONLY AT THE ATTAINABLE. 

Now, sir, what do we attempt ? I am going, perhaps, to make a con- 
fession as to what you may think the nakedness of the land — of the 
stinty character of the measure ; but looking at these three divisions we 
deal only with one, and we deal with that one, not upon exhaustive 
principles, but with a view to great practical ends, leaving much upon which 
the critic and the speculator may, if they tliink fit, exercise their in- 
genuity in the way of remark or of complaint. And why is it we should 
not present a complete Bill ? The faculty of authorship is getting very 
weak, I am afraid, in myself, although many of my colleagues are not 
only in the vigour of life, but sufficiently fertile of mind and brain, and 
I have no doubt that with our joint authorship we could have produced 
a perfectly complete Bill. Why did we not do so ? Because if we had 
done so we knew as well as if the thing had happened that the Bill 
must remain a Bill, and would never become an Act. I say this is not 
a perfect Bill with regard to the franchise. What are the questions we 
leave out ? We do not aim at ideal perfection, and I hope gentlemen 
will not force us upon that line ; it would be the " Road to Ruin." I 
have heard that there have been artists and authors who never could 
satisfy themselves as to the perfection of their picture, or of their diction, 
as the case may be, and in consequence the picture and the diction have 
been wasted. I remember a most venerable archbishop — Archbishop 
Howley — who, with respect be it spoken, was the worst speaker in the 
House of Lords. And why ? Because he was a man of inferior intellect ? 
He was a man of remarkable intellect, remarkable education, remark- 
able refinement, but unfortunately he had a taste so fastidious that he 
never could satisfy himself that his terms were perfect and his phrases 
entirely beyond criticism, and in consequence of his fastidiousness 
between the one and the other catastrophe befel him. No, sir ; ideal 
perfection is not the true basis of English legislation. We look at the 
attainable ; we look at the practicable ; and we have too much of 
English sense to be drawn away by those sanguine delineations of what 
might possibly be attained in Utopia, from a path which promises to 
enable us to eff'ect great good for the people of England. This is not 
an exhaustive list, but to aim at an ideal franchise might draw in the 
question of proportional representation ; the question of women's 
suffrage ; the question with regard to which my right hon. friend 
(Mr. Bright) has invented a wicked phrase, as he has invented a good 
many. I call a phrase a wicked phrase when it commits murder, and 
my right hon. friend has had the fortune repeatedly to kill a proposal 
by 'a phrase. There was once a group of proposals made in a Reform 
Bill which he at once dubbed " fancy franchises," and by that phrase 
he killed them all. There is also the question of voting papers ; the 
question of the franchises of the Universities, of the freeman's franchises, 
of the livery franchise and the burgage franchise ; and there is again 
the principle of whether one man should have more than one vote. 
There is, in fact, no end to the proposals that might be raised even on 
the stage of the first of these three great divisions, without touching the 
other two. Our principle has been to inquire what was practicable j 



1 30 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone^ M.P. 

what were the conditions under which we had to move and to act in 
the present state of Parliament, and of parliamentary business. We 
have heard in former years, and possibly we may hear this year, some- 
thing about the consequences of deck-loading a ship. We are deter- 
mined, as far as depends upon us, not to deck-load our Franchise Bill. 
We consider that we have filled the hold with a good and a sufficient 
cargo, but the deck-loading of it would be a preliminary to its founder- 
ing ; and were we with that impression — nay, not merely impression, 
but with that conviction and knowledge — to encumber our Bill with 
unnecessary weight, we should be traitors to the cause which we profess 
to have taken in hand, and we therefore will have nothing to do with 
giving encouragement to such a policy. As to registration, all I will 
say is this, that our Bill is framed with the intention of preparing a 
state of things in which the whole occupation franchise, which, I 
believe, will be about five-sixths of the franchise, shall be a self-acting 
franchise, and the labour, anxiety, and expense connected with proof of 
title, which is, after all, according to our view, the affair of the public 
and the State rather tlian of the individual, will, I trust, be got rid of. 
But, at the same time, our Bill is not a complete Bill in that vital 
resjpect, and we look to the introduction of another Bill for the purpose, 
with which we shall be prepared immediately when the House has 
supplied us with the basis on which it wishes us to proceed. 

REDISTRIBUTION. 

I now come to the third of these great problems, and I think the 
House will not be surprised when 1 say that, if we find ourselves quite 
incompetent, consistently with the aims we have in view and with 
public interests, to deal with the franchise in an exhaustive manner, 
they will not be surprised when I say that, a fortiori, in our opinion it 
would be absurd for us to attempt to deal in the same measure with 
what is termed redistribution. This is a question of great importance, 
and I make no apology for detaining the House upon it. The argument 
for redistribution was on former occasions never treated by us as a con- 
temptible argument, even when we thought it was far wiser to separate 
the two subjects — I mean in 1866. There was a strong argument then 
in favour of uniting redistribution with legislation on the franchise, and 
it was this : that we had even then sought to keep alive broad and vital 
distinctions between the county and the town constituencies ; and as 
long as these broad and vital distinctions subsisted, there would have 
been very great inconvenience in a serious separation between legislation 
on the franchise and legislation on redistribution. For of course by 
legislation on redistribution two things happen — rural districts that 
have hitherto been rural districts in law become towns in law, and 
districts that have hitherto been towns in law, if there be any disfran- 
chisement of however small a constituency, become rural districts in 
law. Well, in either case under the law that prevailed before 1866, and 
under the law which has prevailed since then,, there would have been 
a very large change in the franchise, and, in certain cases, there would 
have been great disfranchisement iniiicted had redistrilmtibn been left 
to 1)6 dealt Yv'ith separately from legislation on the franchise, and at that 



The Franchise Bill. 131 



time our contention was that the best way was to legislate on the 
franchise, and to follow that legislation at the earliest possible moment 
with legislation on redistribution. However, that argument was not 
then successful. But I admit at that time there was a great deal to be 
said in favour of those who opposed separation. What is to be said in 
favour of it now ? The franchise is not going to be absolutely identical, 
but it will be within a shade of it. Don't let us conceal that from our- 
selves. All over the country the occupiers, taken as a whole, will be, if 
I am right, five-sixths of the whole constituencies. What harm will 
happen to them supposing you legislate on the franchise now ? Sup- 
posing through any accident, which I do not expect, this Parliament is 
prevented from legislating on redistribution, what would be the worst 
that could happen ? Districts now rural might, in another Parliament, 
become towns. What would be the difference ? They would exercise 
the same occupying franchise in a town instead of exercising it in a 
county, and their right to vote in the county in respect of a property 
franchise from within the town they would retain as they have it under 
the present law. So again, where Parliament found it necessary in any 
smaller towns to deprive them of the privilege of returning by their sole 
j)ower representatives to Parliament, those persons would still carry the 
same occupying franchise which they have heretofore had into the county. 
So that' in fact that argument has practically vanished. 

Now let me look at the arguments in favour of separating legislation 
on the franchise and legislation on redistribution. I have said our 
measure is incomplete, and that there has never been a complete measure. 
But our measure is complete in one vital respect, in which no measure 
heretofore presented to Parliament has been complete. It is absolutely 
complete as to its area. In our opinion there was an imperative neces- 
sity for making it complete as to its area. I for one should be no party 
to the responsibility of bringing in on this occasion three separate Bills. 
All the three countries have a case for enfranchisement arising out of 
the insufficiency of the present constituencies as compared with what 
they might be ; but of the three the strongest is that of Ireland. I 
could bear no part in the responsibility of passing, perhaps, a Eeform 
Bill for England and, perhaps, a Reform Bill for Scotland, and then 
leaving a Reform Bill for Ireland to take its chance. I do not wish to 
rest on my own impression of what would happen. But I have noticed 
the tone of Conservative organs, and the language of those Conservative 
organs is in effect that there may be something to be said for extending 
the franchise in England and in Scotland, but to extend it in Ireland is 
madness. That is a Conservative organ. That is an indication of 
what would probably happen, I do not say in this House, but else- 
where. Under these circumstances the necessity of a complete measure 
in point of area is, I would say, absolute, and nothing will induce us to 
part with the principle. Next, I would ask the House to consider what 
it is that we ought really to attempt. What has been the effect of 
uniting redistribution with franchise legislation since 1832 ? It has 
been that the redistribution has been of a trivial character, hardly pur- 
chasing a postponement of the question, and in reality and in regard to 
its broader principles has simply given the question the go-by. Some 



132 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

people may be innocent enough to tliink that our opponents are to be 
conciliated by uniting redistribution with franchise legislation. We had 
some experience of that matter in 1866, and we found that, confident 
and sanguine and perhaps a little ferocious as our opponents were before 
we introduced our Eedistribution Bill, when w^e introduced it their 
appetites were whetted, became keener than ever, and still more lively 
was the rush made on every occasion at the unfortunate Bill, until it, 
and still better the Government which proposed it, were brought to 
their extinction. In 1867 the number of seats liberated was thirty-eight, 
and they were liberated by a peculiar process and by leaving a large 
number of small towns with one member. We have to face the question 
whether places with 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 inhabitants are to continue to 
possess the sole power of returning a representative to Parliament. The 
uniting of the two descriptions of legislation has resulted formerly in the 
inefficient handling of redistribution. If redistribution is to be touched 
at all, it must be touched more broadly. 

What will be the effect of introducing a plan of redistribution % It is 
quite evident we ought to have some regard to what has happened before. 
There was one effective plan known to Parliament — the plan of 1831- 
1832. What was the effect of that plan ? The effect was two-fold — in 
the first place it multiplied six-fold the labour of the Eeform Bill. In 
Committee on the Keform Bill there were three nights occupied upon 
the franchise legislation ; twenty-four nights were occupied on redistri- 
bution ; and the effect of associating redistribution with legislation on 
the franchise would be to produce at present a result not very different. 
More than that, the franchise legislation has opponents who find it 
difficult to show their colours. — Eedistribution is their favourite study ; 
but it is impossible not to observe this fact — that of the three political 
crises produced in connection with reform legislation, every one has been 
produced by redistribution, and not one by the franchise. A vote on 
the redistribution of power brought about the defeat of the first Eeform 
Bill, and it brought about a dissolution of Parliament. A vote on the 
redistribution of power brought about the crisis of the year 1832, which 
was the most serious crisis known to the country since the Eevolution 
of 1688. It was all brought about by the vote of the House of Lords — 
not upon the franchise, oh no — it was more convenient to deal with the 
question of redistribution. The crisis of 1866 involved no consequences 
more serious than the displacement of one Government and the intro- 
duction of another Government, which in the following year introduced 
a Bill establishing the principle of household suffrage. I only refer to 
it because it comes under the definition of a crisis. To take the two 
Bills together would be to place on ourselves a multitude of provisions 
and a complexitj'- of legislation such as we know would make it imprac- 
ticable for us under the present condition of Parliamentarj^^ business to 
have the smallest hope of passing into law. There is one reason which 
is not unimportant — a practical reason, and that is that it is quite im- 
possible, until we have the new franchise legislation, to form any just 
idea of the limits of the new redistribution. That, however, I need not 
dwell upon, but there is another reason which goes to the root of the 
matter, and it is this — the union, of franchise legislation with redistribu- 



The Franchise Bill. 133 



tion makes a confusion of things that ought to be kept sedulously apart. 
I will tell you why. The question of the franchise is a large and 
national one, and ought to be determined upon Imperial considerations. 
I take it there is no doubt about that. Is redistribution a question that 
is only determined upon Imperial and national considerations? Of 
course the question of redistribution raises up local feeling, and what 
may be described without offence as a selfish feeling: The effect of that 
is this, that, where the two measures are mixed together, those who 
think their local interests are touched by the measures, oppose the exten- 
sion of the franchise for fear of the redistribution which is to follow. 
The consequence is that they decide the great Imperial question of the 
franchise on grounds which are sectional and local, if not selfish. 
It appears to me that that is a political objection of a very 
grave description indeed. These reasons seem to me to be more than 
sufficient to justify and to compel us to decline the responsibility for 
any measure which should combine redistribution with extension of the 
franchise. 

Now what do I admit ? I admit that legislation on redistribution 
ought to follow legislation on the franchise at an early date, aye — at 
the earliest date — and the earliest date will be next Session ; and it is 
for that reason we have brought forward the Franchise Bill of 1884 in 
order that within the natural life of the present Parliament there may 
be plenty of time to deal with the question. Of course I mean if we 
have the permission of hon. members opposite. Perhaps you may say, 
" Tell us your plan." Well, sir, we do not intend to walk into any 
trap. And in my opinion there can be no greater mistake than for a 
Government, which is not going to legislate immediately on redistribu- 
tion, and cannot legislate upon it during the Session, to give its view on 
the subject. 

"a little sketch." 
The only substitute I can offer is a very humble one. I have not the 
least objection to make a little sketch of my own views upon redistribu- 
tion, and although I cannot commit my colleagues absolutely to them, 
yet I certainly would say this, that I would not submit them if I be- 
lieved them to be vitally in conflict with any of the opinions they enter- 
tain. I need not detain the House long with them, but I will just run 
through the main features. In the first place I think when a measure 
of redistribution comes, as it may come, I hope, next year, in order that 
it may have that sort of relative finality to which we ought always to 
look forward, especially when organic changes are in question, it must 
be a large measure of redistribution. I do not know whether it need be 
so large as the measure of 1831, which, of course, effected a wholesale 
slaughter of nominally existing boroughs and constituencies in this 
country ; but at any rate it must be nearer the measure of 1831 than the 
one of 1867 in order to attain its object. At the same time I am not 
personally at all favourable to what is called the system of electoral dis- 
tricts, or to the adoption of any pure population scale. I cannot pretend 
to have the fear and horror which some people have with regard to the 
consequences of electoral districts. My objection is a very simple and 



134 Speeches oj Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

practical one. In the first place electoral districts wonld involve a great 
deal of unnecessary displacement and disturbance of traditions, which, I 
think, yon ought to respect. But my second objection is — and I regard 
it as a very important one — that I don't believe that public opinion at 
all requires it, and I doubt whether it would warrant it. Next I should 
say that in a sound measure of redistribution the distinction between 
town and country, known to electoral law as borough and shire, ought 
to be maintained. Although our franchise is nearly identical, that is 
not the question. The question is whether there is not in pursuits and 
associations, and in social circumstances, a difference between town and 
country, between borough and shire, which it is expedient, becoming, 
and useful to maintain. Now, sir, I do not think we ought to have any 
absolute population scale. I would respect within moderate limits the 
individuality of constituencies, and I would not attempt to place towns 
which have had representation for many generations precisely and 
mathematically upon the footing of towns that have not. 

IRISH REPRESENTATION UNTOUCHED. 

There is another principle to which I would call attention. I am 
certainly disposed to admit that very large and closely-concentrated 
populations need not have, and perhaps ought not to have, quite so 
high a proportional share in the representation of the country as rural 
and dispersed populations, because the actual political power in these 
concentrated masses is sharper, quicker, and more vehement. That con- 
sideration, of course, would apply most of all to the Metropolis. Another 
proposition I would lay down is this — I would not reduce the propor- 
tional share of representation accorded by the present law to Ireland. 
In the case of Ireland, as in the case of some other parts of the country, 
in my opinion some regard ought to be had to relative nearness and dis- 
tance. Take Scotland, for example : the nearest part of it is 350 miles 
off, and some parts of it are between 600 and 700 miles off. It is im- 
possible to say that numerical representation meets the case, though I 
grant it is pretty well made up for by the shrewdness of the men whom 
Scotland sends ; but it is her virtue and good fortune which cause her 
to make so excellent a choice. Undoubtedly, however, the representa- 
tion is exercised under great difficulties, and it is fair that those parts of 
the country which like Scotland and Ireland are separated by great dis- 
tances, not omitting the element of sea, should be more liberally dealt 
with in ]3roportion to the representatives they ought to send. Well, sir, 
that is pretty nearly all I have to say, excepting one other proposition 
which I am disposed to lay down with considerable hesitation, and not 
as giving a final opinion. Speaking roughly, what will happen will be 
this. Smaller boroughs, so many of which are in the South of England, 
must yield seats for London and other great towns, for the counties, 
and, thirdly, for Scotland and the North of England, which have perhaps 
the largest and most salient of all these claims. The prospect of that 
operation certainly suggests ag^roposition, if under the altered circum- 
stances of Parliament and its Increasing business Parliament were dis- 
posed to entertain it, but which it has not yet favourably entertained, 
and I think ought not to entertain unless for grave cause, for a limited 



The Franchise Bill. 135 



addition to tlie number of its members. I ask no assent of the House 
to tliat proposition. All I say is, I do not exclude it from the view of 
the whole circumstances of the case ; and it may be found materially to 
ease the operation, 'which is one, taken altogether, of no slight magnitude 
and difficulty. Finally, when redistribution has come forward, then will 
be the proper time for considering all the propositions with regard to 
minority representation and with regard to modes of voting. These very 
important subjects will have to be fully considered, but I myself see no 
cause to change the opinion I have always entertained with regard to 
them. I admit they have claims which ought to receive the full and 
impartial consideration of Parliament. 

Before sitting down I wish to make two appeals. One is an appeal 
to gentlemen whom I am afraid I cannot class as friends, and more par- 
ticularly to the right lion, gentleman (Sir J. Hay) who has given notice 
of the first amendment. He knows my sentiments on that subject. It 
is impossible to entertain the question of redistribution at all without 
including in a measure a liberal enlargement of the number of members 
accorded to Scotland. If we are called upon to set aside this Bill to make 
that assertion, which is totally unnecessary, we may equally well be called 
upon to make any other assertion. We then come to the amendment of 
the hon. member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) ; it is one of those 
motions which might be multiplied by the score, and of which it is too 
obvious the object is to say we will not entertain your Bill, we will not 
consider it. Then comes the motion of the hon. member for Stafford 
(Mr. Salt). That is a distinct refusal. He proposes to the House dis- 
tinctly to refuse to entertain the subject recommended by the initiative 
of the Government and the Crown. The House has never taken such a 
course. The House has upon very rare occasions indeed entertained 
motions analogous to that of the right hon, gentleman, that is to say, 
touching the subject matter even of measures recommended in the 
Queen's Speech ; but that has been extremely rare, and I submit to the 
House that it is rather hard that after more than a hundred persons 
have been allowed upon their own authority and recommendation to 
bring Bills into the House of Commons without resistance, that the 
Speech from the Throne on the responsibility of the Government, re- 
commending in the most prominent manner the subject of Parliamen- 
tary reform to the consideration of Parliament, is to be met for the first 
time in our history by an absolute refusal to entertain the subject at all, 
and by setting up other reasons which, in the opinion of the hon. 
member, are reasons why the recommendations from the Throne should 
be contemptuously trodden down. That is my appeal to the opponents 
of the measure. 

APPEAL TO REFORMERS. 

But I have the strongest appeal to make to its friends. I entreat 
them not to endanger the Bill by additions. This Bill is in no danger 
from direct opposition. It has some danger to encounter from indirect 
opposition ; but of these dangers from indirect opposition, I for one am 
not afraid, unless they be aggravated by the addition of dangers which 
it may have to encounter from friendship. For I do not hesitate to say 



136 Speeches oj Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

that it is just as possible for friends to destroy the measure by additions 
which it will not bear, as it is for enemies. If I may presume to tender 
advice, it is this : Ask yourselves whether the measure is worth having. 
What does it do, and what does it do in comparison with what has been 
done before ? In 1832 there was passed what was considered a Magna 
Charta of British liberties ; but that Magna Charta of British liberties 
added, according to the previous estimate of Lord John Russell, half a 
million, while according to the results considerably less than half a 
million were added, to the entire constituency of the three countries. 
After 1832 we come to 1866. At that time the total constituency of the 
United Kingdom reached 1,364,000. By the Bills which were passed 
between 1867 and 1869 that number was raised to 2,448,000. And now, 
sir, under the action of the present law the constituency has reached in 
round numbers what I would call 3,000,000. I will not enter into 
details ; but what is the increase we are going to make 'I There is a 
basis of computation, but it is a basis which affords, I admit, ground for 
conjecture and opinion. That basis of computation is the present ratio 
in towns, between inhabited houses and the number of town electors. 
Of course we have availed ourselves of that basis for the purpose of com- 
putation. I have gone into the matter as carefully as I can, and the 
best results I can attain are these. The Bill, if it passes as presented, 
will add to the English constituency over 1,300,000 persons. It will 
add to the Scotch constituency, Scotland being at present rather better 
provided for in this respect than either of the other countries, over 
200,000, and to the Irish constituency over 400,000, or in the main to 
the present aggregate constituency of the United Kingdom, taken at 
3,000,000, it will add 2,000,000 more, nearly twice as much as was 
added since 1867, and more than four times as much as was added in 
1832. Surely, I say, that is worth doing, that is worth not endangering. 
Surely that is worth some sacrifice. 

This is a measure with results such as I have ventured to sketch them 
that ought to bring home to the mind of every man favourable to the 
extension of popular liberty, the solemn question what course he is to 
pursue in regard to it. I hope the House will look at it as the Liberal 
party in 1831 looked at the Reform Bill of that date, and determined 
that they would waive criticism of minute details, that they would 
waive particular preferences and predilections, and would look at the 
broad scope and general effect of the measure. Do that upon this occa- 
sion. It is a Bill worth having, and if it is worth having, again I say 
it is a Bill worth your not endangering. Let us enter into no byeways 
which would lead us off the path marked out straight before us : let us 
not wander on the hill-tops of speculation ; let us not wander into the 
morasses and fogs of doubt. We are firm in the faith that enfranchise- 
ment is a good, that the people may be trusted — that the voters under 
the Constitution are the strength of the Constitution. What we want in 
order to carry this Bill, considering as I fully believe that the very large 
majority of this country are favourable to its principle — what we want 
in order to carry it is union and union only. What will endanger it is 
disunion and disunion only. Let us hold firmly together and success 
•will crown our effort. You will, as much as any former Parliament that 



The Vote of Credit 137 



has conferred great legislative benefits on the nation, have your reward, 
and 

*' Eead j'our history in a nation's eyes," 

for you will have deserved it by the benefits you will have conferred. 
You will have made this strong nation stronger still, stronger by its 
closer union without ; stronger against its foes, if and when it has any 
foes without ; stronger within by union between class and class, and by 
arraying all classes and all portions of the community in one solid, com- 
pacted mass round the ancient throne which it has loved so well, and 
round a Constitution now to be more than ever powerful, and more 
than ever free, 



THE VOTE OF CEEDIT. 

{IN TEE MOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 27, 1885.) 

I WILL, sir, endeavour to explain as clearly as I can the nature and 
grounds of the vote, which we now submit, trusting to the indulgence 
of the Committee, because I am conscious — I have, I am sorry to say, 
for months past been conscious — of an habitual hoarseness which may 
make the function of listening very disagreeable and irksome. 

I trust that the Committee, at least in some degree, now understand 
that, if there is anything unusual in the nature and character of this 
vote, it arises, not out of a caprice of ours, still less out of an unmanly 
intention of avoiding controversial debate adverse to ourselves, but out 
of the nature of the case. We have before us a case, sir, for which in 
a material point there is no precedent known to me. We propose a 
vote of credit amounting to eleven millions of money ; six millions and 
a-half being likely to be spent in what w^e term " special preparations," 
and being secured from being spent for any other purposes : four and 
a half millions being likely to be spent in and in connection with the 
Soudan, but being in a degree that I cannot at present define capable of 
being spent for another purpose — that is to say, the same purpose as our 
special preparations. And I ask leave of the Committee to repeat my 
words, that, adhering to the policy we have announced to the House of 
holding the Soudan forces available for service elsewhere, I believe that 
we have had absolutely no option except either to ask the House to vote 
money which may be wanted in the Soudan, with the power to use it for 
the purpose of the special preparations, or else to vote twice over a very 
large and uncertain sum of money, to which course, I believe, strong and 
just and even insurmountable objection might be taken. Moreover I 



138 Speeclies of UigM Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P 

will point out that, until it is shown that there is some other course open 
to us, the ohjection with regard to the special nature of this vote entirely 
falls to the ground and is worthless. 

Sir, the peculiarity in the case to which I refer is, of course, this : 
I know of no instance, either in or beyond my own recollection, since 
the financial system of this House was well developed (and, indeed, it 
hardly had come to be thoroughly developed when I first became a 
member of this House), in which it has been the duty of the Government 
to propose to the House at one and the same time two very large sums 
of money for military purposes, one of which, the second, may run into 
the first, although the first is not to run into the second. We ask it 
upon this ground : It is essentially bound up with the policy of 
holding the large forc3 now in the Soudan available for transfer and for 
service elsewhere. That is the justification of the course which I agree 
with my hon. friend, the member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), 
should be taken upon no ground except that of strong necessity, and 
of making the best choice we can between rival inconveniences. I 
certainly, for one, would never have dreamed of taking it on any 
other ground, and I believe that I am speaking for m}^ colleagues when 
I so speak. 

It is thought by some that we take this course because it evades a 
vote of censure upon us on account of our policy in the Soudan. It 
appears to be assumed that it would have been competent to members 
of the Committee to say, first of all, that they would give us the money 
for sj)ecial preparations, and, secondly, give us the money for the Soudan 
vote, but that in giving the money for the Soudan vote they would 
combine with it a vote of censure upon the Government. Sir, I believe 
that it would not have been competent, either in point of form or 
in point of substance, for the Committee to have taken that course. I 
do not think that it is upon record that an attempt has ever been made 
to take such a course. This the Committee may do with perfect 
consistency — they may give the money for the Soudan, founding that 
vote on the necessity which has been created, and they may reserve to 
themselves the discretion of censuring the Government, notwithstanding 
that they have voted the money. Surely that doctrine is sound, 
because, otherwise, why vote the money for the special preparations 
until 3^ou are satisfied that in everything which touches them we deserve 
your approval ? I do not suppose that you are quite prepared to aflirm, 
as one gentleman has declared . to-night, that we and not Kussia are 
responsible for the difiiculty in which we stand. Another hon. gentleman 
cheers, so that there are two persons, at any rate, who will be in the 
predicament of either refusing money for special preparations or else of 
being content to reserve to themselves for some future occasion the j)ower 
which they undoubtedly possess, and may very legitimately exercise, of 
censuring us for the wrong principles upon which we have proceeded, or 
for the want of judgment with which we have endeavoured to apply the 
right principles. 

There appears to be a mistaken idea pervading the minds of young 
members of this House, and, indeed, of some old ones, that the granting 
of a vote of credit which it is not intended to refuse is an usual occasion 



The Vote of Credit, 139 



for bringing the Government to trial upon matters to wliicli the vote 
relates. 
Lord R. Churchill. — Your party did it in 1878. 

THE VOTE OF 1878. 

Mr. Gladstone. — I am very much obliged to the noble lord. My 
memory goes back to 1878, and it goes back somewhat further. I do 
not bring forward a proposition of this kind without being prepared to 
examine and to stand by it. As the noble lord challenges me to begin 
with that extraordinary precedent, I may say that we had in 1878 a vote 
of credit proposed to this House which is without parallel in our history 
We fought that vote of credit upon principle. We objected to the most 
dangerous precedent then established. We objected to the purpose 
which it had in view. I will on this occasion save hon. members the 
trouble of doing what tliey are fond of doing — of paying me the compli- 
ment of quoting me — and I will quote myself. Someone said to-night, 
'^ I wish the right hon. gentleman would read the speech he made in 
1878." It was a most unkind wish. He could not have doomed me to 
a task more irksome and unacceptable ; but, anticipating what was 
likely to happen, I was beforehand with the hon. member, and I do not 
think there is one word which in the same circumstances I should not be 
ready to repeat. I hope the noble lord will, when any former speeches 
of his are referred to, be always in a position to quote them Vvith as much 
security. On that occasion I ventured to say : — 

" So far as I know, there is no case where a Conference of the Powers of Evu'ope 
has been called together, where those Powers, as a preliminary to its assembling 
have increased, or taken powers to increase, their naval and military estabhsh- 
ments." 

I believe no novelty more astounding in form and in substance is to be 
found than the astonishing proposal that, when the Powers of Europe 
were about peacefully to meet for purposes of the highest deliberation, 
to be conducted by pacific means, in the common interest, and with the 
highest authority in the civilised world, that peaceful meeting was to be 
disturbed by the clash of arms, and that one of the Governments which 
are to take part in the proceedings of that assembly is to spend six 
millions in military preparations for the sake, forsooth, of strengthening 
its hands. 

Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett. — What about Alexandria 1 
Mr. Gladstone. — Interruptions of that kind are totally irrelevant, 
and are hardly compatible with the decencies of this House. If it be 
true that on this occasion, with respect to the money we ask for the 
Soudan, there is a disposition to refuse it upon principle — if the case is 
really analogous to that of 1878, when our desire was not to grant one 
farthing of those £6,000,000 for what we deemed to be unlawful and 
evil purposes — if that parallel prevail, by all means let opposition be 
made to what we now propose in whatever way you may like to make it. 
But I understand, on the contrary, that you are prepared to vote the 
money, and it is upon that supposition that I argue. It appears to be 
said that we asked for information. What information had we given us % 



140 Speeches oj Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P, 

I hold all the information given, and it was this, as I summed it np at 
the time : — 

*' I have heard a great deal said about the vote of £6,000,000 being intended to 
strengthen the hands of the Government, to protect British interests, and to put us 
on a footing with other Powers." 

I should like to know, after receiving information such as that, in what 
point were we one jot the wiser ? We knew nothing of what was to be 
done. We knew nothing of the Salisbury-Schouvaloff agreement. We 
knew nothing of secret covenants with other Powers although the Powers 
of Europe were to be assembled in Council. We knew nothing of 
Anglo-Turkish treaties ; we knew nothing of the occupation and 
administration of Cyprus in particular, to be taken in defiance of the 
Treaty of Paris and the law of Europe. All these things were concealed. 
These were the matters on which we ought to have had information, 
and if we had had it I am not sure that even the last Parliament would 
really have voted the ^6,000,000. But, sir, undoubtedly, if that is the 
sort of information that you want we can give it : we want the hands of 
the Government strengthened, we want British interests protected, we 
want British honour guarded. All these generalities, which were all 
that we extracted from you upon a former occasion, we are ready to 
return ; but we have not the audacity to pretend that, in paying you 
off with such coin as that, we think we are really giving you political 
information. 

PRECEDENTS. 

Sir, the fact is that, so far as I am aware, it has not been the practice 
of this House to choose votes of credit as occasions for general discussion 
of the matter to which they refer. I will appeal in support of what I 
have said to the evidence of facts. There are certain occasions which I 
will not quote, because if we were in the middle of a great war like the 
Crimean War, and after providing so many millions for the Navy and 
so many for the Army, my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer) were to demand a vote of credit over and above, there then 
could be no occasion for discussion, for the policy of the war must be a 
thing notorious to, and accepted by, the House and the country. Votes 
of credit of that kind may be given without discussion. I will take 
another case when it was not so. It was a vote of credit proposed when 
I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, it was a double vote of 
credit proposed in 1860 for the purposes of the China War. We began 
on the 16th of March by proposing a vote of £850,000. The hour was 
late, and the necessity was great. There was no statement, and no 
debate. There was merely a protest made that the vote was only 
allowed to pass on account of the great urgency of time in connection 
with our financial needs. On the 19th the vote was reported in the 
regular mode, and debate arose. But the debate which did arise was 
entirely upon military detail and nothing else ; and, although undoubt- 
edly that vote was upon a very serious subject of policy— a subject 
which required discussion, and which obtained discussion — it was not 
discussed on the occasion of the vote. In the month of July we had to 



The Vote of Credit. 141 



propose, unfortunately, a very much larger vote for purposes connected 
with the same expedition. In that month what happened was this : 
We had sent to China in the interval certain offers of peace. These 
offers had failed. Military operations became necessary, and we had to 
ask for no less than £3,356,000 on the 12th of July. Again there was 
no statement of policy in connection with it. There was, again, a 
military debate. Late in the evening. Sir John Pakington — not Mr. 
Disraeli, who demanded no discussion upon it — said he would like, at 
the end of the speech, a fuller explanation as to the definite objects of 
the war ; and Lord Eussell, in the space of a very few minutes^ said he 
thought that the right hon. gentleman, belonging to the former Govern- 
ment, was as much responsible for the war as the Government then in 
office, and that the terms of peace then offered were quite reasonable. 
So that there was no discussion on either of those occasions — practically 
no discussion and no arraignment of the Government. 

But, sir, it may be said, and said truly, that the war was going on. 
Therefore, I will quote a case which will amply make good what I have 
said, and when no war was going on. This was the case of the vote of 
credit which it was my duty to propose when I was Prime Minister in 
1870. It was a vote of £2,000,000 of money. On the 1st of August 
Mr. Disraeli raised a debate on the critical state of affairs on the conti- 
nent of Europe. It was in the course of that debate that I stated the 
intention of the Government to ask for a vote of credit without defining 
the purposes of the vote further than this — not very much unlike the 
information we got in 1878. I said : — 

""We are neutrals in the war. We are on terms of unequivocal friendship 
with both the parties, and our object is to maintain a dignified and friendly 
position." 

That, sir, was the statement made by me on the part of the Government 
on the 1st of August. On the 2nd of August, no war existing, we being 
in no way a party to any quarrel, being in no difficulty and no danger — ■ 
though we had an object in view, of which the House was aware, like 
the public, in a general way — we asked the House, without a word of 
statement, for the £2,000,000, and without a word of objection it was 
given. On the 8tli of August Earl Granville produced a Treaty in the 
House of Lords, and I produced a Treaty in the House of Commons 
which we had concluded with a view to the neutrality of Belgium. 
Some discussion then took place. Mr. Disraeli, in particular, said that 
he thought the proceeding was a good and a manly proposal. There was 
a general concurrence in the House, and such short debate as took place 
was not of a contentious character. But what I am contending is that 
that debate occurred a week after the vote of credit. The vote of credit 
had nothing to do with it, and the circumstances in which the vote of 
credit was proposed were again deemed to be circumstances which made 
it wise not to choose that moment for a general discussion on the merits 
of the question. 

Well now, sir, what is the present case ? I am not at all surprised 
that gentlemen in this House should say that the Government are cen- 
surable in their determination to ask no money in the present vote for 



142 Si^eeclies of Eight Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

the prosecution of offensive operations in Egypt. I think that is a 
question of a dignity and order perfectly warranting the conduct of any- 
one who may think fit to call the attention of the House to it at a 
proper time ; and if any vote of censure is to be moved on the Govern- 
ment for such a purpose from the proper source, and with proper autho- 
rity, it will have from us every proper attention and accommodation. 
We shall give every opportunity for its being discussed, whatever its 
issue is to be. But what we wish to do now is simply to make under- 
stood the purposes of this vote, and to give the opportunity which it has 
been the custom of the House to use, though I do not wish to tie it 
do^vn to that custom, for discussing the military provisions which it is 
the object of the vote to make. The first thing we ask is a vote of four 
and a-half millions for the Soudan, as being likely to be spent in the 
Soudan, but with the plain declaration, which is the basis on our part 
of the whole of these proceedings, that as far as we are concerned, and 
quite apart from any wider opinions that any of us may entertain 
against the proceedings in the Soudan, we are all determined, so far as 
we are concerned, that the Soudan shall not, by anything hereafter- to be 
done, offer an impediment to the full discharge of the duties of the 
Empire, with the whole purpose and the whole power of the Empire, in 
whatever quarter of the world they may happen to lie. For this 
reason, avowedly and undisguisedly, we ask you to give us this money 
because the troops are now in the Soudan. We cannot say how much 
of it may be spent there, because it is possible that none of it may be 
spent there, except in connection with certain specified objects there or 
for bringing the men home. We ask you distinctly to give it to us with 
an unfettered discretion to apply it elsewhere for higher purposes and 
for higher duties, if necessary. I hope that is intelligible, and I hope 
that will not be mixed up with any question of technical fidelity to 
rules for voting money which on every ordinary occasion we are most 
desirous strictly and rigorously to maintain. 

With regard to the Soudan portion of this vote, explaining it as I 
have now explained it, the state of the case is this : I have nothing of a 
substantial character to add to what I stated on the 20th of April, when, 
on the part of the Government, and in words agreed upon with and by 
my colleagues, I said that we had found it necessary to review the whole 
situation of the Empire, and that we considered the time to be one at 
which it was necessary to hold its entire resources well in hand for use 
and for application wherever they might be wanted. If the Committee 
do not agree with that proposition, let them reject the proposal we 
now make. If the Committee do agree in the proposal, they may 
canvass, they may criticise, they may censure, they may expel and eject 
the present Government, if they like, and most welcome they will be ; 
but they cannot withhold from us the money which we ask. I wish 
broadly to draw this distinction between the granting of the money on 
a vote of credit which we ask, and the reservation of the amplest liberty 
on the part of the House to discuss the merits of the question, and to 
visit upon the heads of responsible and guilty Ministers a vote of 
censure, or whatever penalty they may deserve. 

At the same time, while that is really the substance of the proposition 



The Vote of Credit 143 



that I make on the part of the Government as the basis of this plan, 
the Committee may naturally remind me that it is not the first declara- 
tion made this year on the subject of the Soudan. On the 19th of 
February, when the House met, I made a declaration on behalf of my 
colleagues not less formal, not less binding, than that to which I have 
now referred. I therefore go back to the 19th of February and the dis- 
cussion of that evening, and to the decisions which at that time I 
announced to the House as having been taken by the Cabinet, and having 
received the sanction of Her Majesty. When on the 4th of February 
we heard of the betrayal of Khartoum, the Cabinet was of course sum- 
moned, and it was gathered together next day. The desire of the 
Cabinet at that time was to endeavour to prevent the spreading of the 
disturbance, to do everything that could be done on behalf of General 
Gordon, if he were alive — and at that time we had no means of judging 
whether he was alive or not, or even whether he Avas continuing resist- 
ance or not — and if possible, of course, to go forward at once to the 
accomplishment of the purpose of Lord Wolseley's expedition. That 
was our starting point. As I stated on the ]9th of February, Lord 
Wolseley pointed out to us that we must move forward from that start- 
ing point. There were, he told us, two plans of military operations, 
one based on the idea of taking Khartoum, and the other based upon 
the abandonment of that object. We thought, sir, that we were not 
justified, under the circumstances of the hour, in the abandonment of 
that idea ; and we therefore adopted the plan pointed out by Lord 
Wolseley, Avhich was meant to reserve to us a full discretion upon the 
facts as they then stood before us to go forward to Khartoum at a later 
period, presuming it to be impracticable to effect its capture immediately, 
and presuming, of course, that Parliament should be found disposed to 
sanction such a plan, and that we ourselves, on further consideration, 
should find reason still to adhere to it. On that ground we founded the 
statement that I made on the 19th of February, and retained to ourselves 
in full the power to march to Khartoum. 

THE MAHDI. 

I referred at that time to various circumstances, and I think that, 
upon an impartial view, or upon any intelligent view, it must 
be admitted that many of those circumstances have since that period 
undergone serious change. In the first place, the heroic General 
Gordon, we know, has sealed his purpose with his blood. Of that we 
had no knowledge whatever at the tinie when we came to the decisions 
of, I think, the 6th of February. We saw at that time, as the world 
saw, an indefinite but possibly a very great danger in the effect that 
might be produced both upon Egypt and with regard to the defence of 
Egypt, and likewise in other quarters of the East, by a simple policy of 
retirement in the face of a triumphant pretender to the dignity of a 
prophet. The Mahdi was then triumphant, and his position was a very 
grave fact in the case before us. That position is greatly altered. In 
the flush of his triumph he attempted to move down the river, but not 
many days were required to show to him the vanity of that operation. 
He retired to Khartoum, lie has retired from Khartoum. He is at- 



144 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

tacked in his own seat. Left to themselves and not immediately 
menaced by us, a rival or rivals have started np, and the Mahdi is not 
the formidable character that he was in the first week of February. As 
to the defence of Egypt, sir, we in no way relax the obligations under 
which we hold ourselves to stand. In my announcement last Monday 
on the part of my colleagues we declared that we held to that duty, as 
we had held to it before. As respects the general effect upon the East 
of the betrayal of Khartoum, what we had then to contemplate was that 
if we had ordered a retirement of our forces — a retirement accompanied 
with general inaction in the East — we should have had to compute the 
probable or possible effect, not in Egypt only, but beyond Egypt — 
throughout the East and in the Indian Empire — of that retirement. 
That was the alternative before us then. I could almost wish it were 
the alternative before us now ; but it is not so ; and the policy that is 
necessary in the existing circumstances, which I shall say nothing to 
exaggerate or to worsen — the policy that is before us now is of necessity 
a policy of preparatory action in the East, which puts wholly out of 
view any apprehensions that either a timorous or a prudent man might 
have entertained in the first week of February in connection with pos- 
sible moral effects of the betrayal of Khartoum, and the apparent triumph 
of the Mahdi. 

There were other smaller, or rather, narrower considerations, although 
very far indeed from being unimportant. I mentioned to the House at 
that time that there were several topics which we were unwilling sum- 
marily to brush aside ; though we did not bind ourselves to do anything 
beyond what might be found reasonable and practicable in regard to 
them. One of them, though I did not give it a very prominent place, 
was whether the possession of Khartoum w^ould enable us to impose a 
serious check upon the prosecution of the Slave trade. I may say that 
an examination does not at all tend to show that the possession of 
Khartoum would have any vital or any very appreciable influence on 
that evil trailc. A very important consideration, both at that moment 
and throughout the whole of last year, was this — to whom did General 
Gordon hold himself bound in honour at Khartoum 1 General Gordon 
was under the belief, and that belief we derived from his telegrams, 
sporadic as they unfortunately were from the necessity of the case, that 
a large portion of the population of Khartoum were deeply bound up 
with him in interest and feeling, and that their fate was dependent 
upon his. But the evidence positive and negative before us — what we 
have heard and what we have not heard, connected with the betrayal of 
Khartoum — does not, so far as it goes, support that belief of General 
Gordon. What is quite plain is this, that with his heroic character and 
his extraordinary gifts he exercised a power of fascination upon a few of 
the natives and soldiers who were in personal contact with him, and 
there is much reason to suppose that he mistook that for a general 
attachment of the soldiers, and even for something more. We have no 
reason to suppose that any considerable body ever attached themselves 
to him, and we have no reason to suppose that the general population 
of Khartoum — though I have no doubt some of the immediate adherents 
suffered in their lives ox fortrjnes— suffered by what has taken place. 



The Vote of Credit. 145 



There was, further, a consideration with respect to the establishment of 
a government at Khartoum ; but there again we are not entitled to assert 
of our own knowledge or conviction that the govermnent of Khartoum 
is at this moment worse than it was four or five years ago. As regards 
the Egyptian garrisons, one or two of the smaller garrisons have quite 
recently been relieved, and the principal garrisons hold their ground. 
We are not able to say what is their exact condition, what are the 
motives of their present conduct. We are not able to say that it is not 
in their power, if they cease to represent Egyptian supremacy in. the 
Soudan, to leave the country. That is a question on which we can give 
no positive opinion. We never have admitted that we were bound to 
use the forces and sacrifice the blood and the treasm^e of England in the 
heart of the Soudan for the relief of those garrisons whom we did not 
send there, and with whose despatch we had no concern whatever. 
Though we should have been very glad, had it been in our power, to 
assist them in. removal, it would have been a piece of guilt and folly 
were we to make that a capital object of our policy, and to expend 
British life and treasure in relieving them. This is only a reference to 
changes or modifications of circumstances, but I shall say no more on 
the Soudan. I go back upon my main proposition, 

AN IMPERIAL POLICY. 

That proposition is that it is a paramount duty incumbent upon us to 
hold our forces in the Soudan available for service wherever the call 
of duty and honour may summon them in the service of the British 
Empire. I have heard with great satisfaction the assurances of hon. 
gentlemen opposite that they are disposed to forward in every way the 
grant of funds to us, to be used, as we best think, for the maintenance 
of what I have upon former occasions described as a " National and 
Imperial policy." Certainly, an adequate sense of our obligations to 
our Indian Empire has never yet been claimed by any party in this 
country as its exclusive inheritance. In my opinion, he would be 
guilty of a moral offence and gross political folly who should endeavour 
to claim, on behalf of his own party, any superiority in that respect 
over those to whom he is habitually opposed. It is an Imperial policy 
in which we are engaged. 

With respect to this vote, I have, indeed, heard comments upon the 
smallness of the vote. But it is the largest vote of credit that has been 
asked, as far as I know, within the last seventy years, unless it were in 
the time of the Crimean war. What I wish to observe is this, that the 
vote is a little larger than it looks, because while it is stated at six and 
a-half millions, in the first place, it is cotemporaneous with a large 
increase of charge in the annual estimates for the army and navy, dealt 
with by the House in the course of its regular duty. In the second 
place, possibly, and more or less probably, it contemplates receiving a 
considerable addition from the other branch of this vote of four and a- 
half millions which we have put down as likely to be spent in the 
Soudan ; and thirdly, and more important than either of these two 
items, which I do not hold to be trivial, it must be borne in mind that 
this case is primarily an Indian case of military preparations. Those 



146 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

who want to know what is the total amount of effort now going forward, 
and the total amount of the charge likely to be entailed by the present 
preparations upon the subjects of Her Majesty, would require to know, 
which we certainly do not yet know — what will be the cost of the 
vigorous and effective measures which, as we hope and believe, are being 
taken in India, to enable the Government of that country to meet its 
share of the present obligations. 

A demand for information is always a plausible demand, often a 
reasonable demand, never a demand to be treated with anything but 
respect. Let us consider what is the present position and what is the 
mode of conduct on the part of the Government adapted to that posi- 
tion. It is not a case of war. There is no war before us, actually, or I 
may even say, perhaps, proximately — although I am slow to deal with 
epithets that are, of course, liable to some latitude of interpretation. I 
am not called upon to define, and I should find much difficulty in 
defining, inasmuch as it does not depend upon any choice of mine or 
my colleagues, the degree of danger that may be before us. We labour, 
we have laboured, and shall continue to labour, for an honourable settle- 
ment by pacific means. One thing I will venture to say with regard to 
that sad contingency of an outbreak of war, or a rupture of relations 
between two great Powers like Eussia and England — one thing I will 
say with great strength of conviction, and great earnestness in my 
endeavour to impress it upon the Committee, and it is this : we will 
strive to conduct ourselves to the end of this diplomatic controversy in 
such a way as that, if, unhappily, it is to end in violence or rupture, 
we may at least be able to challenge the verdict of civilised mankind, 
upon a review of the correspondence, upon a review of the demands 
made and refusals given, to say whether we have, or whether we have 
not, done all that men could do by every just and honourable effort to 
prevent the plunging of two such countries, v/ith all the millions that 
own their sway, into bloodshed and strife, of which it might be difl&cult 
to foresee the close. 

A CASE OF PREPARATIOlSr. 

In my opinion, the question before the Committee- at this moment — 
not the final question — but the question at this moment is a simple, I 
might say even a narrow question, though in itself a great and impor- 
tant question. What we present to you is a case for preparation. Is 
there, or is there not, a case for preparation ] Look at the facts before 
you. Try them by that test and by no other. Do not let us urge our 
own foregone conclusions about the misconduct of Eussia or anyone 
else ; do not let us enter into the judicial part of the case — only into 
that part of it which is prudential. Upon that aspect of the case, and 
upon that alone, asking for no credit as to the future and no acquittal 
as to the past, we say it is a case for preparation. All the facts that are 
within your knowledge are enough to make it your bounden duty so to 
prepare. Therefore, sir, if I am asked for more information, my answer 
is this — it is impossible for us to give you full information. We could 
not, at this moment, open up the correspondence that has been going 
on. We could not lay before you the unsifted information, still less the 



The Vote of Credit. 147 



rumours, that have reached us. We could not enable you, by any 
possibility, to judge of a question that has not yet reached a state of 
maturity for judgment. The evidence is not complete. The develop- 
ment is simply going forward. Do not let us too sanguinely count on 
a favourable issue. At the same time do not let us despair that reason 
and justice may, on both sides, prevail over narrower and more un- 
worthy feelings. We cannot give all the information we possess. ^ If 
we did give it, it would not place you in a position for conclusive 
judgment. Were we to give part, we should infallibly mislead you ; 
and, therefore, we stand simply upon what is patent and notorious, 
and say that, on those patent and notorious facts with which the whole 
world is acquainted as well as we are, there is a case, and abundant 
case, for preparation. 

Now, sir, in order to show that I do not speak wholly without book 
shall I, in a very few moments before 1 sit down, sketch rudely and 
slightly an outline of those patent and notorious facts ? The starting- 
point of our movement in this case is our obligation of honour to the 
Ameer of Afghanistan. He stands betw^een us and any other considera- 
tion of policy or of danger. Our obligations to him are not absolute. 
We are not obliged — God forbid that we should ever be obliged — to 
defend him, or to defend anybody else, were he misled into a course of 
tyranny against the just resentment of his subjects. We are not bound, 
contrary to our just duty, to sustain him, even in a course of folly. We 
are bound by no such obligation ; but we have a contingent obligation 
to give him our aid and support; and I think everyone who hears me 
will say that that obligation should be fulfilled in no stinted manner, if 
it really be a living obligation, contingent only upon this one condition, 
that his conduct is such as we can honestly approve. That is the present 
condition of affairs in connection with the Ameer of Afghanistan. 

I have stated distinctly to the House that there have been full 
communications between him and the Viceroy, and that the language 
which he holds, and the principles which he announces, are those 
which absolutely entitle him to call upon us in concert and in council 
with him, acting for him and, as far as we can, acting^with him, to 
protect him in the possession of his just rights. Well, sir, in this view 
a plan was framed for the delimitation of the frontier between himself 
and what was until yesterday Turkoman territory, but has now become 
by a rapid process Russian territory. I am not about to enter into any 
invidious comment. We have made, under the force of circumstances, 
very rapid progress ourselves in various quarters of the world, and the idea 
which, beyond all, I desire to carry along with me in every step of this 
painful and anxious process, is a determination to make every allowance 
and every concession to those with whom we are dealing that we should 
claim, and that we should expect for ourselves. Therefore, I only say 
this territory has rapidly become Russian, and Russia, as the head of 
this Turkoman country, is now in immediate contact with Afghanistan. 
A plan was framed for the delimitation of the frontier. That plan has, 
unhappily, been intercepted in the sense that it has not yet taken effect 
in action. The question of the delays in the progress of that plan is a 
question that may have to be carefully examined hereafter. I am not 



148 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone^ M.P. 



about to examine these delays now, T, am not about to make tliem in 
any way a matter of charge, but I must point out the injurious effect 
that they have had in practice j for they led to advances — to military 
advances upon debated ground that were obviously, and on the face 
of them, and in a high degree dangerous — dangerous to peace, dan- 
gerous to goodwill, dangerous to the future settlement of the question. 

A SOLEMN COVENANT. 

Aware of those dangers, we set ourselves to work to bring about an 
agreement with the government of Russia, by which we hoped they 
might in a great degree be neutralised. That agreement was concluded 
on the 16th of March, although it has passed by the date of the I7th of 
March, inasmuch as, I think, that was the day on which it was tele- 
graphed by Sir Ronald Thomson to Sir Peter Lumsden. The Com- 
mittee will perhaps recollect the substance of that agreement and my 
announcement of it in this House. It made a deep impression on my 
mind. The agreement consisted of a covenant and of a reservation. 
The covenant was that the Russian troops should not advance nor attack 
provided the Afghan troops did not advance nor attack. That was the 
covenant. There followed the reservation, and the reservation was 
" unless in the case of some extraordinary accident, such as a disturbance 
in Penj-deh." I well recollect the feeling which the reading of that 
reservation created in the House. The same feeling had been created 
in our own minds before we announced it in the House. It was obvious 
that we were just as much entitled to insert reservations on our side. 
I only now refer to this matter in order to exhibit, as well as I can 
without injustice, the spirit in which we have endeavoured to proceed — 
a spirit of liberal construction and interpretation wherever we thought 
we could apply it without sacrifice of honour or duty. I think it will 
be admitted that exception might have been taken to that reservation 
as covering God knows how many and what contingencies, had we been 
disposed to examine it in a spirit of cavilling or of criticism. But 
we determined to give credit _^for its having been conceived — yes, we 
thought it our duty and we acted upon that duty — to take it as 
conceived in honour and good faith. We so construed it, and I do 
not repent having so construed it. I do not say that the construction 
is shown to have been wrong, but, come what may, I shall not repent 
having put that construction upon it. However, it was so taken, and 
I am bound to say that, although I think the House was somewhat 
startled by the reservation, it was generally, and I believe wisely, 
accepted by the House as a binding covenant. Sir, it was a very 
solemn covenant. It was a covenant involving great issues. There 
were thousands of men on the one side and on the other — on the one 
side standing for what they thought their country, on the other side 
standing for what they thought likewise their patriotic duty, standing 
in the lace of one another without a definite cause to contend for, but 
placed in a position of dangerous contiguity, and with the peril of 
bloody collision. This engagement came in to stand between the living 
and the dead, to stand between the danger and the people who were 
exposed to it, and we hoped and we believed that it would be recog- 



The Vote of Credit 149 



nised as one of the most sacred covenants ever made between two great 
nations with the strictest fidelity, and that if, unhappily, a deviation 
occurred there would be a generous rivalry between the two Powers to 
search it out to the bottom and to exhibit to the world how that 
deviation had come about, and who was the person, or who were the 
persons on whom lay the responsibility. All this, sir, remains in 
suspense. 

"we cannot close the book." 

What has happened ? A bloody engagement on the 30th of March fol- 
lowed the covenant of the 16th. I shall overstate nothing. At least I shall 
not purposely overstate anything. I hope I shall not inadvertently over- 
state anything. All I shall say is this — that that woeful engagement on 
the 30th of March distinctly showed that one party or both had, either 
through ill-will or through unfortunate mishap, failed to fulfil the con- 
ditions of the engagement. We considered it to be, and we still consider 
it to be, the duty of both countries and, above all, I will say for the 
honour of both countries, to examine how and by whose fault this 
calamity came about. I will have no foregone conclusion. I will 
not anticipate that we are in the right. Although I feel perfect 
confidence in the honour and intelligence of our officers, I will not now 
assume that they may not have been misled. I will prepare myself 
for the issue ; and I will abide by it, as far as I can, in a spirit of 
impartiality. But what I say is this — that those who have caused such 
an engagement to fail ought to become known to their own govern- 
ment, and to the other contracting government. I will not say that 
we are even now in possession of all the facts of the case. But we are 
in possession of many ; and we are in possession of facts which create 
in our minds impressions unfavourable to the conduct of some of those 
who form the other party in these negotiations. However, I will not 
wilfully deviate from the strictest principles of justice in anticipating 
anything as to the ultimate issue of that fair inquiry which we are 
desirous of prosecuting, and endeavouring to prosecute. The cause of that 
deplorable collision may be uncertain. What is certain is that the 
attack was a Kussian attack. Whose was the provocation is a matter of 
the utmost consequence. We only know that the attack was a Russian 
attack. We know that the Afghans suffered in life, in spirit, and in 
repute. We know that a blow was struck at the credit and the 
authority of a Sovereign — our ally — our protected ally — who had com- 
mitted no offence. All I say is, we cannot in that state of things 
close this book and say : " We will look into it no more." We must do 
our best to have right done in the matter. 

Under these circumstances, I again say, there is a case for prepara- 
tion, and I hope that the House will agree with me, after what I have 
said about the necessity we are under of holding Soudanese funds 
available for service elsewhere, I trust that they will not press upon 
us a demand for time which can have no other effect than that of 
propagating here and elsewhere a belief that there is some indecision in 
the mind of Parliament ; whereas I believe that with one heart and 
one soul, and one purpose only, wliile reserving absolute liberty to judge 



150 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

the conduct of the Goveriinient, and to visit them with its consequences, 
they will go forward to meet the demands of justice and the calls of 
honour, and will, subject onlj to justice and to honour, labour for the 
purposes of peace. 



ADDRESS TO THE ELECTORS OF 
MIDLOTHIAN. 

Gentlemen, 

i. — introduction : personal intentions. 

A change, even more extensive, and, as I believe, not less safe, than 
the changes made at former epochs, has now been accomplished in our 
representative system. It consequently falls to you to express your 
judgment on the conduct and the work of the expiring Parliauient. 
And it becomes my duty, notwithstanding serious considerations which 
would lead to an opposite decision, to submit myself to this judgment, 
by asking a renewal of the trust which you so generously conferred, upon 
me in 1880. I venture to add that I look with cheerfulness to the 
result of the appeal. 

The mention, however, of that year reminds me of the flight of time. 
It is obviously not possible for me to repeat, in a new Parliament, any- 
thing like the labours of the older one. But I am too closely asso- 
ciated with the ]3ublic proceedings of the last six sessions to withdraw 
myself from the acquittal or condemnation which is about to be pro- 
nounced. 

And the circumstances of the case will, perhaps, excuse me, if I find it 
necessary now to detain you greater length than is usual in an address 
soliciting re-election. 

II. — PARLIAMENT OP 1880. ITS LEGISLATIVE WORK. 

In referring to the legislative history of the Parliament of 1880, I do 
not adopt the language of apology. Even apart from the great subject 
which has occupied the two last of its six sessions, it will certainly bear 
a favourable comparison with former periods, and in particular with the 
Parliament which preceded it. 

That was a Parliament composed of " farmers' friends,'' but it effected 
no legislation for the farmer in his time of trial. Inheriting at its birth 
in 1874 a most flourishing finance, it left untouched the Malt Tax, which 
(except when Tory Governments were in power) Tory orators had always 
denounced as an intolerable burden ; and it passed a m.easure ostensibly 
for giving security to farmers in respect to their improvements^ which 



Address to the Ulectors of Midlothian. 151 

tlie fanners themselves received with, indifference or contempt. But the 
last Parliament repealed the Malt Tax ; substituted for the abortive Act 
a law giving real security to improvements made by tenants ; and also 
dealt, I believe effectively, in its very first session with the serious 
grievance of the occupiers of land from the ravages of ground game. 

Apart from the subjects I have mentioned, the Irish Land Act and 
Arrears Act, the Burials Act, the Bankruptcy and Patents Acts, the 
valuable, if still incomplete, reform of the Death Duties, the Act for 
determining the Liability of Employers, the Act for the Localisation of 
the Army, the Scottish Secretary Act, the important law framed by Sir 
Henry James for the repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, both 
Parliamentary and Municipal, and the commencement effected, with so 
much difficulty, in the reform of Procedure, form an honourable record 
of the determination and ability with which, in the teeth of such an 
amount of obstruction as had never before been exhibited, the House of 
Commons has laboured in your cause. - 

III. — ARREARS OF LEGISLATION. 

It is too true, indeed, that the public business of this great empire 
still remains lamentably in arrear. These arrears include more subjects 
of importance to the several sections of the country than I can now 
enumerate. As perhaps the most important portions of the unfulfilled 
work, I may refer to the subjects of London Government, and of Local 
Government generally (in which I include the Liquor traffic), and of the 
Land Laws. But I say advisedly that with both these subjects we should 
have been enabled effectually to grapple, had not the Tory party un- 
happily deemed it to be a duty to encounter with the most determined 
opposition our main attempts to improve the Procedure of the House of 
Commons, and our views in favour of multiplying its working powers 
by a judicious and extensive s^T'stem of devolution of business to what 
are known as Grand or Standing Committees. Had that party been 
opposed in principle to the efficiency of the House of Commons, it coul(| 
not have pursued its object better than by the course it actually took. 

IV. — POLICY ABROAD. TREATY OP BERLIN. 

Having thus far spoken of the Parliament with reference to domestic 
affairs, I now turn to those which lie beyond the sea. With reference to 
the several questions which we principally considered in 1879-80, I 
shall proceed to contrast the position they then held with that which 
they happily hold at the present time. 

At that date, among the many provisions of the Treaty of Berlin 
which remained unexecuted, there were two which were highly 
menacing to the general peace. The territory promised to Monte- 
negro, and the territory virtually promised to Greece, had not been 
given ; and a full and formal title was thus afforded to any one of the 
contracting States, whose purposes it might suit, to renew at its pleasure 
the war in the East of Europe. With the countenance and aid of some 
of the Powers, we were enabled to obtain the fulfilment of the covenant 
with Montenegro, and to secure Thessaly for Greece. Other important 



152 Byeeches oj Right Ron. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

provisions of the Treaty unhappily still remain a dead letter, but they 
have not the same immediate connection with the public tranquillity. 

V. — AFGHANISTAN, AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 

We found Afghanistan broken to pieces, held down only by the might 
of British arms, and so perilously hostile that it required a force exceed- 
ing sixty thousand men to maintain security on the North- Western 
frontier. Under the late Ministry, that country was restored to unity 
and independence, in defiance of resolute opposition and motions of cen- 
sure from the Tories. Forty of the sixty thousand men thus became 
available for the legitimate military purposes of the Indian Govern- 
ment. 

Since that time, there has arisen a controversy with Eussia, involving 
the security of the Indian frontier, for which no particular administra- 
tion or party is responsible. We shall, as I trust, prosecute that contro- 
versy, in the interest and with the assistance of the Afghan Ruler and 
people, to a happy issue. Need I remark how different, and how far 
more formidable, would have been the obstacles encumbering our path, 
had we, by a continuance of violence and injustice, driven that brave 
people into the arms of our opponent ? 

At the very same time when the military resources of India were thus 
heavily taxed, and her finances deranged by an expenditure on the 
Afghan War of 1878 not falling far short of twenty millions, her 
internal liberties, which we ought carefully and systematically to 
enlarge, had been invaded by a law, passed with indecent haste, which 
placed the freedom of her native press at the mercy of the Government. 
This law has been repealed. The Press is again free, and native powers 
have been in other respects enlarged by the wise policy of Lord Eipon, 
than whom, as every expression of Indian opinion proves, no viceroy 
has more ably or more effectually laboured to cement the union between 
India and the British Crown. 

VI. — SOUTH AFRICA. 

Not less unfortunate was the position of affairs in South Africa. We 
had there effected, in violation of our pledges, and in defiance of the 
fully declared wishes of the people, a forcible incorporation with the 
empire of an independent European Republic, whose inhabitants were 
resolutely determined to be free. We have been severely condemned 
because, after supplying military means such as to place beyond doubt 
the superiority of British power, we refused to prosecute a work of 
sanguinary subjugation. We pursued a policy that has left the Trans- 
vaal free, and divested of all hostility ; and has averted a war of Euro- 
pean and Christian races throughout the South African States, which 
would have been alike menacing to our power, and scandalous in the 
face of civilisation and of Christendom. As this has been with our 
opponents a favourite subject of unmeasured denunciation, so I, for one, 
hail and reciprocate their challenge ; and I hope the nation will give a 
clear judgment on our refusal to put down liberty by force, and on the 
measures which have brought about the XDresent tranquillity of South 
Africa, 



Address to the Electors of Midlothian. 153 

VII. — EGYPT. 

The policy of a foreign intervention in Egyptian affairs, of which I 
have not ceased, since 1876, in Parliament and in the Press, to point 
out the certain dangers, has produced its natural results, which the 
late Administration strove anxiously and incessantly, yet in vain, to 
avert. 

The chief sources of comfort, in reviewing a series of transactions 
generally painful, are that we have respected, to the utmost of our 
power, international laws and arrangements ; have confined within 
Egyptian limits troubles which menaced the general peace ; have used 
every administrative effort to support our gallant forces in maintaining 
the honour of the British arms ; have, beyond all doubt, introduced 
most valuable improvements, too sorely needed, into Egyptian law and 
government ; and, finally, have indicated provisions on a reasonable 
basis for the future government of Egypt, and the exercise of its legal 
an tonomy without foreign intervention. 

Even preceding topics have been touched but roughly in this address : 
still more does the complexity of the Egyptian question defy any 
attempt to unfold it fully within the limits, even the extended limits 
which I must observe. But in this slight outline I shall use no language 
which I am not able to sustain. 

Postponing for the moment, with a view to greater clearness, what re- 
lates to the Soudan, I afiirni that every step which we took in Egypt 
down to the time of the operations against Arabi Pacha, in 1882, was 
the direct consequence of the agreement with France for reciprocal sup- 
port, and for the maintenance of a native Government, which had been 
concluded in 1879 before our accession to oifice. 

The French Chamber, in the exercise of its undoubted right, rejected, 
in 1882, the proposal of its Ministry to take part in military measures. 
Sorrowfully, but without doubt, though I felt less than many of my 
countrymen the pressure of the argument from British interests other 
than that of honour, I held, and I still hold, that that paramount in- 
terest compelled us, in the execution of our pledge for the maintenance 
of a native Government, to re-establish the authority of the Khedive 
and the peace of the country, and to prosecute all the practicable re- 
forms. 

Our judgment was sustained by public opinion. In November, 1883, 
we had reached a point at which we were able to advise the evacuation 
of Cairo, together with the immediate reduction of the occupying force 
to a brigade in Alexandria and at Port Said. We had thus, in my 
judgment, a hopeful prospect of an early evacuation of the entire 
country. 

It was then that the disasters of an unhappy war in the Soudan, in 
no way due to us, produced a state of things so menacing to Egypt it- 
self, that we found it our duty at once to take measures intended to 
prevent the extension of the disturbances beyond that region. But we 
insisted upon its evacuation by Egypt, and we offered our aid towards 
the withdrawal of the garrisons by peaceful means. 

Lord Hartington has lately and justly stated, in general terms, that 



154 Speeches oj Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

lie is not disposed to deny our having fallen into errors of judgment. I 
will go one step further, and admit that we committed such errors, and 
serious errors too, with cost of treasure and of precious lives in the 
Soudan. For none of these errors were we rebuked by the voice of the 
Opposition. We were only rebuked, and that incessantly, because Ave 
did not commit them with precipitation, and because we did not com- 
mit other errors greater still. 

Our mistakes in the Soudan I cannot now state in detaiL The task 
belongs to history. Our responsibility for them cannot be questioned. 
Yet its character ought not to be misapprehended. In such a task, mis- 
carriages were inevitable. They are the proper and certain consequence 
of undertakings that war against nature, and tliat lie beyond the scope 
of human means and of rational and prudent human action ; and the 
first authors of these undertakings are the real makers of the mischief. 

However, as between political parties, the matter at length came to a 
pretty clear issue. At the beginning of the late Session, in one of their 
innumerable motions of censure, the Opposition condemned us because 
we would not engage to keep the Queen's forces in the Soudan until we 
had effected the establishment of some regular Government there. We, 
who had always deprecated the use of British force for such a purpose, 
refused the engagement. Further, and since the recent change of Minis- 
try, the new Government has declared in Parliament that, though the 
process of evacuating the Soudan was too far advanced to be recalled or 
arrested, yet the measure was in itself to be regretted and condemned. 
Now, about the vast importance of this question there is no more doubt 
than about the positions of the two parties in regard to it. I know there 
are persons of no mean authority who have held that 'the expedition to 
Khartoum would have been the most arduous military effort undertaken 
by us since the battle of Waterloo. We thought the evacuation neces- 
sary, wise, and just. The Tories thought it needless and deplorable. 
Either the country has been saved by the late Government from a most 
perilous and costly undertaking, to which the present Government had 
striven to commit it ; or it has been deprived by us of a noble oppor- 
tunity, which they would have used on its behalf. The principles of 
opposite policies are here pretty clearly brought out ; let the country 
judge between them. 

So much for the Soudan. I must revert to Egypt proper. 

The present Government have rightly declared by the mouth of Lord 
Salisbury, since their accession to office, that no progress could be made 
in our Egyptian relations, until the finance of that country was adjusted. 
As this long and wearisome process is now complete, and as the yet 
more formidable barrier of Soudanese operations is also removed, I take 
upon me, with no intention of cavil or of censure, to express, in terms if 
possible still stronger and clearer than those I have used in Parliament, 
an earnest aspiration for our entire withdrawal from Egyptian territory 
at the earliest moment which honour will permit. The views of the 
late Government on this subject are sufficiently known to the Powers 
most interested in it. A mischievous idea has had some support among 
us, from opinion and from public journals, either that Egypt ought to 
be annexed or that it should be placed under a British Protectorate, or 



Address to the Electors of Midlothian. 155 

that at the least our occupation of it ought to be indefinitely or greatly- 
prolonged. To each and all of these measures I am altogether opposed. 
It is said that we ought not to quit Egypt without some compensation for 
our eftorts and sacrifices there. On this I have two remarks to make. 
First, that we have, according to my conviction from the very first (when 
the question was not within the sphere of party contentions) committed 
by our intervention in Egypt a grave political error, and that the con- 
sequence, which the Providential order commonly allots to such error, 
is not compensation, but retribution. Secondly, What is the supposed 
compensation ? It is a prolongation of our military occupation in 
Egypt. Now, this is simply an aggravation of the mischief, for which 
it is supposed to compensate. The best wisdom, when a policy founded 
in error has been adopted, is to bring it promptly to a close, I hope 
that this subject will be present in all its force to the mind of the coun- 
try at this juncture. Until we shall have been enabled to quit Egypt, 
we shall, I fear, remain liable in a hundred ways to be thwarted and 
humiliated through the numerous rights secured there, by international 
arrangements, to other Powers. Of the exercise of these rights we have 
no legal title to complain ; for they are founded on international law, 
and we are bound to respect them. But the result is, that we are, from 
time to time, unable to secure for Egyptian interests what we think their 
fair claims, and find ourselves to have undertaken a charge which we can 
but imperfectly fulfil. I could, if it were needful, illustrate what I 
have said from the history of the past few weeks, nor do I blame the 
Queen's Ministers if it shall be found that they have only submitted to 
the necessities of their position. My desire simply is, that that position 
should be more clearly understood, and that we should not mistake for 
an advantage what is really an embarrassment. 

I do not doubt our power to continue this occupation, for years and 
years to come, without efi"ectual hindrance, any more than I doubt the 
power of the possessors of great fortunes to waste them upon worthless 
purposes. 

When we shall have been set free from our irksome and thankless 
task, we shall be restored to that admirable position in Europe, of per- 
fect independence and salutary influence, which nothing but our own 
errors can put in jeopardy ; an independence given us by the Almighty, 
and surpassing that of every other State ; an influence which I trust 
will always be held subject to a cordial recognition of international 
equality, and will be exercised on every legitimate occasion in support 
of the position of the smaller States, of the infant liberties established 
in the East, and generally of rational freedom, and of peace and public 
right. 

Vlir. — PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. 

In addressing you last year, I entered pretty freely into the question 
of the public expenditure ; and to the published statements of that 
j)eriod I would refer you. The subject is closely associated with the 
matters of which I have just spoken. 

Since my visit in 1884, two causes have swelled the amount of public 
charge up to a point so high, that I shall rejoice if it shall effectually 



156 Speeches oj Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

arrest the attention of the nation. The preparations required in con- 
nection with Kussia and Afghanistan, here and in India, have probably- 
cost ten millions ; on which I shall only say, that the object is honour- 
able and worthy, and that preparation in tens of millions may even be 
economical, as means of averting wars which would certainly cost 
hundreds of millions. The second has been the heavy charge of 
measures growing out of the obligation to attempt, when the season 
permitted it, the relief of the heroic General Gordon : measures which, 
as I have shown, would have entailed, besides the heavy past expendi- 
ture, further and probably much heavier expenditure in the future, had 
the policy of our opponents in favour of occupation been adopted, in lieu 
of our policy of withdrawal from the Soudan. 

In 1879-80 I pointed out to you that the policy of the years imme- 
diately preceding was likely to entail much charge upon the public. 
But among all the costly demands we have had to meet (I do not now 
speak of the Russian controversy), in connection with policy abroad, I 
do not know of so much as one which has sprung out of any new device 
of ours. Establishments, as was well said by Lord Beaconsfield when he 
was Mr. Disraeli, must depend upon policy ; and in a just and peaceful 
policy, foreign, Indian, and colonial, is to be found the surest road to 
economical administration of the public affairs, and the best security 
against the panic and excitement which sometimes cause additions to 
our great services beyond what they really require. 

So much I have felt it needful to say on leading topics which affect 
the commission I received from you in 1880. 

IX. — PROCEDURE. 

I will now approach the consideration of domestic affairs in a pro- 
spective light : and at the threshold I place the question of Parliamen- 
tary procedure. It has gratified me to find abundant proof that the 
country was and is fully alive to the vital importance of Devolution, 
and generally of Procedure, in the House of Commons. To insist upon these 
weighty matters implies nothing derogatory to the wisdom of the old rules 
of Parliament. They were well adapted to the work which Parliament 
had formerly to do. Nothing is now required, but to bring about, in a 
like spirit, a similar adaptation. The task of the House of Commons in 
our time has habitually exceeded what had ever been imposed upon a 
legislative body in the whole history of the world. Those who are 
reasonably so keen for legislation on one subject or another should 
recollect that, with regard to each and all of them, the primary question 
is as to the sound working condition of the great instrument by which 
all legislation is accomplished. If that instrument is properly adjusted, 
I believe the House can do its work : if that operation is defeated or 
evaded, I am certain it camiot. The constituencies have now to choose 
a new House : and it depends entirely on their selection among candi- 
dates, and on their treatment of candidates with reference to these 
questions, whether that work shall be done or not. 

Meantime, I desire clearly to point out the three cardinal points of 
the question. First, the congestion of business, now notorious and 
inveterate, degrades the House of Commons, by placing it at the mercy 



Address to the Electors 0/ Midlothian. 157 

of tliose among its members who seek for notoriety by obstructing busi- 
ness, instead of pursuing the more honourable road to reputation by 
useful service ; or of those who, with more semblance of warrant, seek 
to cripple the action of the House of Commons, in order to force the 
acceptance of their own political projects. Secondly, it disappoints, 
irritates, and injures the country by the suspension of useful legislation. 
And lastly, and, perhaps, worst of all, it defeats the fundamental rule of 
our Parliamentary system that the majority shall prevail, and puts it in 
the power of the minority to prevent, by unduly consuming the time of 
the House, the passing of measures which it dislikes, but of which it is 
afraid openly to declare its disaj^proval. This country will not, in the 
full sense, be a seK-governing country', until the machinery of the House 
of Commons is amended, and its procedure reformed. 

X. — LOCAL GOVBKNMENT. 

I am not sure that the views of the country are so clear, and its mind 
so fully ripened, on the next great subject which I have to mention, that 
of Local Government. First, it is involved in great intricacy of financial 
and administrative detail. We are proverbially apt to become careless 
and remiss about what we have long securely and familiarly held in 
possession. And, moreover, the position of the c^uestion has been 
seriously damaged by the profuseness of the Tory party in charging 
local burdens on the Consolidated Fund, without making due attempts 
to improve the organisation of local authority, and by centralising 
measures of which, when in power, they have procured the adoption, 
I am glad to see that Lord Salisbury has recently spoken in strono- 
terms of the advantages of Local Government ; but the opinions of 
Lord Salisbury have already been in strong contrast, on the great 
subject of Irish administration, with more influential opinions of his 
colleagues in the House of Commons. Even the limits of this address 
do not permit me to set out in detail what I think of the weight and 
moment of this thoroughly unexciting, but as thoroughly vital, subject. 
I believe it to lie at the root of all our liberties, and of all our 
aptitudes. It is the instrument of our public education : and it is the 
guarantee of our political stability. Even in its imperfect development 
it has been of inestimable value ; and it may and should be made to 
do yet more for us in the future, even than what it has done for us in 
the past. 

In the reform of Local Government the first objects to be aimed at 
in my judgment, are to rectify the balance of taxation as between real 
and personal property ; to put an end to the gross injustice of charging 
upon labour, through the medium of the Consolidated Fund, local 
burdens which our laws have always wisely treated as incident to pro- 
perty ; to relieve the ratepayer, not at the charge of the working 
population, but Avholly or mainly by making over, for local purposes, 
carefully chosen items of taxation ; to supply local management with 
inducements to economy, instead of tempting, and almost forcing, it 
into waste ; finally, and most of all, to render the system thoroughly 
representative and free. The gentry of this country have, especially in 
the counties, long and with justice been commended for the upright 



158 B}^eeclie8 of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone, M.P. 

and intelligent discharge of local duty. I am confident that they will 
continue to enjoy this honourable distinction none the less when 
OLir system shall have heen placed throughout under effective popular 
control. 

Other questions as to the modes in which Local Government may 
prudently be applied, and the extent of its attributions, will doubtless 
arise for consideration when the primary work shall have been 
accomplished. But I mil not omit to observe that this subject 
furnishes the medium through which we may most reasonably look for 
an effectual adjustment of the laws relating to the sale of alcoholic 
liquors^ 

XI. — LAND. 

The next of the important subjects which I have presumed to name 
is the reform of the laws relating to land. I shall treat it, as I have 
treated Local Government, without any attempt to embrace all the 
topics which may be usefully or legitimately raised in regard to it. 
I shall only touch on those parts of the question which I hope may be 
found mature for very early handling by the Liberal party. Belonging 
to a school which has much faith in economic laws, I disapprove of 
interference with them by entails, to which I| am still more opposed on 
social and moral grounds. My desire is both to maintain freedom of 
bequest, and to establish freedom of possession as our future system ; 
and also to deal freely with the transfer of land, the registration of 
land, the taxation of land during life, and upon death, and the custom 
of primogeniture as it now exists in cases of intestacy. I shall rejoice 
if the means thus to be provided, or other means in themselves com- 
mendable, shall lead to a close connection between the nation and the 
soil, through a large extension in the numbers of those directly interested 
in its possession and its produce, but most of all in the proprietorship 
of their own dwellings. 

The balance of taxation as between movable and immovable property, 
and still more as between property and labour, should be carefully 
watched, and should be adjusted, when occasion offers, with a scrupu- 
lousness which was unhappily too little observed at the time when 
property had the absolute command of Parliamentary action. But as to 
the fundamental principles which make property secure, they will, I 
believe, be upheld among us, whether in the near or the more distant 
future, 'with the same courage and integrity as will our liberties, of 
which, indeed, they form an essential part. 

XII. — REGISTRATION. 

I shall only say a very few words upon the fourth of the subjects 
I have named, that of Registration ; for I have still many topics to 
touch on. 

The law has fixed the qualification of voters in the three kingdoms. 
But the possession of the qualification has to be established in the case 
of each individual before he can vote. After this has been done, his 
name is placed upon the authenticated list which we term the Register. 
The sulDsidiary conditions under which he thus comes into practical 



Address to the Electors of Midlothian. 159 

possession of his title require to be re- considered, and tlie whole subject 
demands review, in order that this essential process, the complement of 
the late Reform Act, may be carried through with certainty, simplicity, 
and the smallest possible expenditure of personal labour and of money. 

XIII. — CONDITION AND STRUCTUEE OF THE LIBERAL PARTY. 

I have already named four legislative subjects of moment which have 
reached a state of maturity. Upon each and all of them, with a 
reasonable freedom as to details, I believe that the Liberal party is 
generally and firmly united. They are in basis and spirit truly Liberal ; 
yet they ought not to stir Conservative alarms. The work is ready, 
and the workmen. The Liberal candidates await the commission to 
proceed, which the constituencies alone can give. 

But Tories and Irish Nationalists, Avho have acted in such un- 
precedented harmony for some years, are united in reproaching, and 
even in mocking, the Liberal party on account of its divisions. 

Both the Oppositions which overthreAV the late Administration have 
rested more or less on the enforced silence of dissentients among them- 
selves, which greatly eases Parliamentary operations. But Liberalism 
has ever sought to unite freedom of individual thought and action, to 
which it so largely owes its healthy atmosphere, with corporate effici- 
ency. This aim is noble, but it is difficult. For my own part, although 
it is not the method best adapted to the personal convenience of those 
who may lead, nothing would induce me to exchange it for the high regi- 
mental discipline which brings the two minorities, each in a well-fused 
mass, into the voting lobby. For this valued freedom, and this abund- 
ance of variety, cherished in the Liberal party, have not disabled it, 
during the last half century, from efficient action. For more than two- 
thirds of that period the Liberal party has held power, and fully nine- 
tenths of our useful legislation have been due to its insjDiration and 
its labours. What modern Britain at this moment is, she has become 
substantially through the agency of the Liberal party. 

Such being the facts, it seems natural to ask — why may not the 
Liberal party of the future be useful, with the same freedom, and 
by the same methods, as in the past ? But, to bar an interrogatory 
doubtless very disagreeable to our opponents, it is now sought to 
startle and inflame the country by pointing to the views of our most 
advanced sections. Doubtless there are many Liberals who would 
decline to countersign all my oi)inions, nor could I undertake to be 
responsible for all theirs. But no section constitutes the Liberal party. 
Each section constitutes an element of the Liberal party ; and it is by 
the mixture and composition of its elements, not by the unchecked 
dominance of any one among them, that its results have been, and will 
be, attained. I have found honourable co-operation with Liberals of all 
sections, especially during the last five arduous years, for great public 
purposes, such as the extension of the franchise, perfectly attainable in 
the past, and, were I a younger man, I should hope that it might long 
continue in the future. With regard to the four great subjects which I 
have mentioned as going far to supply a scheme of present action for 
the party, I could not but anticipate such co-operation with confidence, 



160 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, Af.P. 

XIY. — ULTERIOR SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION OR DISCUSSION. 

Thus far I have only mentioned political matters which have been 
for a sufficient time before the public mind, which have undergone much 
discussion, and on which it may be reasonably hoped that the Liberal 
party is ripe for united action. Generally, they may be said to stand 
among the unrecoverecl arrears of public business. 

But they constitute only the vanguard of the host of subjects with 
which the coming Parliament, and its successors, will, or may, have to 
deal. Many of them ought already to have been overtaken and disposed 
of, had the obstacles to the efficiency of the House of Commons been 
effectually overcome. But, apart from this unsatisfactory reminiscence, 
it appears probable, even after all which the last half century has 
achieved, that the growth of population, the expansion of our relations 
throughout the world, the rapid development of social interests, and the 
extension of popular power, will, at least for a considerable time, be 
amply represented in new legislative wants. JFrom any full attempt to 
set them forth, the law of nature, at my time of life, dispenses me. 
But there are some among them as to which the foundations of discus- 
sion have already been laid, and which may therefore demand from me 
a few words : such as the reform or reconstitution of the House of 
Lords, the abolition of all payment for primary education, and the 
severance of the Church from the State. I place these subjects together, 
without intending to imply that I take personally the same view of the 
whole of them. 

XV. — CHANGES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 

As respects changes in the House of Lords, by far the best guarantee 
for the safe treatment of this important subject is one that can only be 
supplied by that House itself, in the moderation and wisdom of its 
future conduct. Since 1832, it has been continuously identified with 
the Tory party in the State, which has obtained the sufi'rage of the 
nation in only two out of twelve Parliaments ; and few outside that 
party will maintain that the legislative action of the House of Lords 
has on the whole been satisfactory. It is likely that, if its constitution 
remain unaltered, the ties of its present party connection will progres- 
sively be tightened rather than relaxed. I certainly cannot deny that 
there is a case sufficient to justify important change. Those who hold 
with Mr. Burke, as I do, that knowledge and virtue alone have an 
intrinsic rio-ht to govern, might desire to constitute a second Chamber 
strictly on^'this basis. But we cannot in the nature of things exclude 
the action of other influences, especially the permanent, growing, and 
hio-hly aggressive power of wealth. Among these secondary influences, 
as a link with the past, as a force congenial to the character and habits 
of the people, and as a check on other and yet more mixed agencies, I 
hope that, in the reconstitution of the House of Peers, when it arrives, a 
reasonable share of power may be allowed, under wise conditions, to the 
principle of birth. 



Address to the Electors of Midlothian. 161 



XVI. — ESTABLISHED CHURCH. 

When the subject of State religion comes into discussion, although it 
has been more fully probed and unfolded in Scotland than elsewhere, and 
although a lively feeling, as was naturally to be expected, exists w^ith 
regard to it in Wales, yet it is the larger case of England which principally 
arrests attention. 

Bearing in mind all the circumstances of the question, in connection 
with the length of my own past career, I might perhaps plead for an 
exemption from all share in this controversy. But, having regard, on 
the other hand, to the deep interest felt in it, with strong conviction, 
on the part of so many whose confidence I have enjoyed, I think it 
right to say a few words, if they only tend to qualify over-sanguine 
expectations, and to mitigate alarms, which appear to me exaggerated, 
though they are entertained by many whom, both officially and personally, 
I revere. 

With respect to the severance of the Church of England from the 
State, I think it obvious that so vast a question cannot become practical 
until it shall have grown familiar to the public mind by thorough 
discussion ; with the further condition that the proposal, when thoroughly 
discussed, shall be approved. Neither, I think, can such a change arise, 
in a country such as ours, except with a large observance of the principles 
of equity and liberality, as well as w^ith the general consent of the nation. 
We can hardly, however, be surprised if those who observe that a current, 
almost throughout the civilised world, slowly sets in this direction, 
should desire or fear that among ourselves too it may be found to 
operate. I cannot forecast the dim and distant courses of the future. 
But, like all others, I have observed the vast and ever increasing develop- 
ment, for the last fifty years, both at home and abroad, in the Church to 
which I belong, of the powers of voluntary support. Those abridge- 
ments of her prerogatives as an Establishment, w^hich have been frequent 
of late years, have not brought about a decrease, and have at least been 
contemporaneous with an increase, of her spiritual and social strength. 
By devotedness of life, and by solidity of labour, the clergy are laying a 
good foundation for the time to come. The attachment of the laity 
improves, if I may so speak, both in quantity and in quality. The 
English Church also appears to be eminently suited, in many and weighty 
points, to the needs of the coming time. And I have a strong convic- 
tion that, if this great modification of our inherited institutions shall 
hereafter be accomplished, the vitality of the Church of England will 
be found equal to all the needs of the occasion. 

XVII. — GRATUITOUS EDUCATION. 

The subject of a gratuitous primary education, to be paid for from 
sources wholly public, is one on which I desire to reserve a final judg- 
ment. There are obvious arguments in favour of the jDlan, which, 
because they are obvious, it is unnecessary to repeat. But it appears 
to me to suggest some difficulties which demand at any rate a grave 

Q 



162 Speeches of PAgJit Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

consideration. According to the habits of this country, a contribution 
towards the cost of the article tends to its being more thoroughly valued 
by the receiver. It seems necessary to consider with care what will be 
the effect of the change on primary education, other than that which is 
supplied by public authority. The rule of our policy is, that nothing 
should be done by the State which can be better or as well done by 
voluntary effort ; and I am not aware that, either in its moral or even 
its literary aspects, the work of the State for education has as yet proved 
its superiority to the work of the religious bodies, or of philanthropic 
individuals. Even the economical consideration of materially augmented 
cost does not appear to be wholly trivial. Again, will there not be 
under the new system an increased jealousy of the introduction into the 
schools of any subject not strictly rudimentary ? There remains the 
religious diihculty. The nation does not appear to be disposed to confine 
the public teaching in the primary schools to matter purely secular. If 
this be so, how are we to ask the entire population of Churchmen, 
Nonconformists, and Eoman Catholics to accept one and the same 
scheme of religious instruction, in despite of their denominational 
differences, and, above all, a scheme prescribed and limited by the 
authority of the State, in a country and at a period when a large mass 
of opinion has grown up which is totally adverse to the use by the State 
of any prescribing and limiting authority at all in religious matters ? 
There may be modes of meeting all or some of these difficulties, but 
until such modes have been carefully weighed, and not found wanting, 
it would be premature in me to endeavour to press forward generally 
the subject of gratuitous primary education, 

I have always preferred the provision of the Scotch Education Act, 
which entrusts the local community with a large discretion respecting 
religious teaching, to the more confined arrangement of the English Act ; 
and as a Scottish representative I should be inclined to watch with care 
for the maintenance in full of the liberty which Scotland now enjoys. 

XVIII. — IRELAND. 

I have reserved until the close the mention of Ireland. 

The change just effected in our representative system is felt to have 
been a large one even in Great Britain ; but it is of far wider scope in 
Ireland, where the mass of the people in boroughs as well as counties 
have, for the first time, by the free and almost unsolicited gift of the 
Legislature, been called to exercise the Parliamentary franchise. They 
will thus, in the coming Parliament, have improved means of making 
knowm, through the Irish members, their views and wishes on public 
aftairs. Without doubt we have arrived at an important epoch in her 
history, which it behoves us to meet in a temper of a very serious and 
dispassionate reflection. 

Those grievances of Ireland, with which we had been historically too 
familiar before and since the Union, have, at length, been happily 
removed. The poison of religious ascendancy, in its various forms, has 
been expelled from the country ; and the condition of the cultivators of 
the soil, constituting the majority of the people, which had been a 



Address to tlie Electors of Midlothian. 163 

scandal and a danger-to the Empire, has been fundamentally improved, 
at the cost of no small effort, by the action of Parliament. 

But the wants of Ireland have to be considered, as well as her griev- 
ances. Down to this hour Ireland has continued greatly in arrear both 
of England and of Scotland, with respect to those powers of local self- 
government which associate the peoi^le, in act and feeling, with the law, 
and which lie at the root, as I believe, of political stability, of the har- 
mony of classes, and of national strength. This is a serious evil ; and 
it is the more to be regretted, because both the circumstances and the 
geographical position of Ireland may appear to invest her, as a portion 
of the Empire, with special claims to a liberal interpretation and applica- 
tion of the principles which the people of Great Britain have traditionally 
held so dear. 

Whatever be the obligations of the party now in power to those known 
in the existing Parliament as Irish Nationalists, the Liberals of England 
and Scotland will have to draw the inspirations of their future policy 
from a higher source, and to cast aside the recollections of party action 
during the last few years, which ought not to prejudice in any way any 
just claim of the Irish people. Neither should those claims be hindered 
on account of any premature and prejudicial words which may have been 
spoken in the acutest, that is the electioneering, stage of a long and too 
bitter controversy. 

Nothing can be easier than to mar and intercept, by narrow prejudices 
and by appeals to passion, any adjustment of this important question; 
which cannot be satisfactorily handled unless it be approached, on the 
one side and on the other, in a spirit of enlightened moderation. 

Should such a spirit happily prevail, I cannot believe that the 
political genius of these nations, illustrious in the history of the world, 
will prove inadequate to the solution of the problem, without the heavy 
drawback of embittered civil strife. If such strife should now unhappily 
arise between Ireland and Great Britain, the one may readily reproach 
and condemn the other, but the broader opinion of the civilised world 
will, I conceive, alike censure both. 

In my opinion, not now for the first time delivered, the limit is clear 
within which any desires of Ireland, constitutionally ascertained, may, 
and beyond which they cannot, receive the assent of Parliament. To 
maintain the supremacy of the Crov/n, the unity of the Empire, and all 
the authority of Parliament necessary for the conservation of that unity, 
is the first duty of every representative of the people. Subject to this 
governing principle, every grant to portions of the country of enlarged 
powers for the management of their own aftairs , is, in my view, not a 
source of danger, but a means of averting it, and is in the nature of a 
new guarantee for increased cohesion, happiness, and strength. 

We have no right to expect that the remedial process in human affairs 
shall always be greatly shorter than the period of mistakes and mis- 
government. And if, in the case of Ireland, half a century of eftbrts at 
redress, not always consistent or sustained, and following upon long ages 
for which as a whole we blush, have still left something to be attempted, 
we ought not to wax weary in well doing, nor rest until every claim 
which justice may be found to urge shall have been satisfied. 

G 2 



1G4 Speeches of Right Hon. William Utoart Gladstone, M.P. 

Tlie main question is, whether it is for the interests of all the three 
countries that the thorough and enduring harmony which has now been 
long established, but only after centuries of manful strife, between Eng- 
land and Scotland should include Ireland also. My jiersonal answer to 
the question is this : I believe history and posterity will consign to dis- 
grace the name and memory of every man, be he who he may, and on 
whichever side of the Channel he may dwell, that, having the power to 
aid in an equitable settlement between Ireland and Great Britain, shall 
use that power, not to aid, but to prevent or to retard it. If the duty 
of working for this end cannot be doubted, then I trust that, on the one 
hand, Ireland will remember that she, too, is subject to the authority of 
reason and justice, and cannot always plead the wrongs of other days in 
bar of submission to them ; and that the two sister kingdoms, aware of 
their overwhelming strength, will dismiss every fear except that of doing 
wrong, and will make yet another effort to complete a reconciling work, 
which has already done so much to redeem the past, and which, when 
completed, will yet more redound to the honour of our legislation and 
our race. 

XIX. — THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT. 

In this lengthened address, which from its very length has enabled 
me to write with much of individual freedom, I have avoided 
criticism upon the proceedings of the Government now in othce ; for 
the most important part of them, so far as they are known to me, relates 
to the government of Ireland, and I am desirous to hold that subject 
altogether separate from retrospective controversy. I also refrain from 
all comment in detail upon the conduct of the party as an Opposition 
in the House of Commons : but it was so novel, and so ominous by way 
of precedent, as to oblige me briefly to observe that, on many matters, 
and especially on many matters relating to foreign affairs, it supplied 
an example of everything which a liigh-minded Opposition should 
avoid. 

I may, however, say that we have given, as was our duty, a cordial 
support to the new Administration in its endeavours to conclude an 
arrangement of the Afghan frontier with Russia on the basis which had 
been laid down by Lord Granville. And I have observed with satis- 
faction that the Secretary of State for the Colonies appears, so far as we 
are informed, to exercise a wise caution in South Africa with reference 
to any further extension of our territorial resj)onsibilities, which I hold 
it most unwise to enlarge without- an overruling necessity. 

XX. — CONCLUSION. 

In conclusion, it may be observed that much of what I have written 
refers to a future which, according to all expectation, lies beyond my 
reach. Nevertheless, as it appears to me, the great occasion of choosing 
a Parliament entails the duty of preparation for contingencies wiiicli it 
may take long to develop ; and it is to aid, so far as I may, in the 
fultilment of this duty, that I have thus submitted my views to your 
consideration. 

Trusting that the constituencies of the country may, by their devotion 



Local Government for Ireland, 165 

to the public good, prove themselves worthy of tlie great and noble 
stewardship committed to them, and confident that you will continue 
to hold your high place among those constituencies, 
I remain, Gentlemen, 

Your obliged and obedient Servant, 

W. E. GLADSTONE. 
Hawarden Castle, Heptemher 17, 1885. 



THE 

FOUETH MIDLOTHIAN CAMPAIGN. 



LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND. 

iON ARUIVAL AT ELINBURGH, NOV. 9, 1885.) 

Although I have travelled a considerable distance to-day, yet in 
coming among you I feel that I am not far from home. Since you were 
good enough to bestow upon me your confidence, harmony has prevailed 
between us, which, I feel convinced, will last until the close of our 
political connection. I thank you, gentlemen, for the warm and gracious 
welcome you have accorded to me, and I only wish there were any 
words I could use that would be suitable to, and sufficient for, the 
occasion, to acknowledge your kindness in the manner which it deserves. 
In coming here among you, I must bear in mind that I am coming for 
purposes of business — and you will not think it a bad compliment, I 
hope, if I venture to say to you that I am not coming to instruct or to 
exhort the constituency of Midlothian, for I know, it appears to me that 
they require but little of instruction or of exhortation. They have had, 
I believe, a copious allowance of these valuable commodities from my 
honourable opponent, Mr. Dalrymple. But I am not, gentlemen, about 
to stimulate you on the subject of the zeal and the care that ought to be 
exercised in electioneering contests. I recollect too well that you are 
already consummate masters of the art. I do not think that either in 
point of purity or in point of efficiency the election of 1880 for the 
county of ^Midlothian ever was surpassed in this coujitry— and I ]ia\'e 



166 Sjoeeclies of Bight Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

upon me at this moment the letter of Mr. Eichardson, in which, imme- 
diately after the close of the poll, he reminds me that the conductors of 
that election had promised me that I should poll 1,569 votes, and points 
out that they were not very far wrong, for that I had polled 1,579 votes. 
I "believe that such operations as these cannot be beaten, and if I have 
to exhort to union and exhort to zeal, but especially exhort to union, I 
do it, gentlemen, in the belief that words spoken here will pass beyond 
the walls which enclose us, and possibly may be heard in quarters where 
there is more occasion or need for them than there is in Midlothian. 
Neither, gentlemen, will I take this occasion of entering upon the 
merits of any of the questions that either are to be settled or are 
not to be settled in the next Parliament. That is a matter which 
will have my best attention, and I may say that, as in some parts 
oi Scotland, there is a certain amount of doubt, misgiving, and varia- 
tion of opinion on the subject of what is termed Disestablishment, 
I propose with no loss of time, on the first occasion that I have 
the opportunity and the honour of addressing a considerable meeting, 
v/liich, I believe, will be the day after to-morrow — I propose to say what 
I have to say upon that subject. At present I will only exhort, and 
strenuously exhort, to what is called the union of the Liberal party« 

THE DUTY OF UNION. 

I will only dwell to-day, with any detail, upon one reason for that 
union. There are many reasons for it. One of those reasons is, that 
we are, gentlemen, a historical party — we are the representatives of the 
Liberals of other days. Whether we are worthy to follow them or not, 
we have yet to prove ; but, at any rate, we stand in their place, we 
profess their principles, we continue their work, and we think their 
tradition is a high tradition ; and whatever it is, a tradition that for the 
last fifty or sixty years has received the emphatic approval of the people 
of these kingdoms. They have been years of greater achievements in 
legislation than had marked any former period in the history of our 
country, and I do not use the language of vain boasting on behalf of 
by-gone Liberals, when I state that which is notorious to all— namely, 
that the great work of beneficial legislation has been mainly and almost 
vv^holly in the hands of the Liberal party. Therefore, gentlemen, I say 
we should not disgrace, we should not come short of the traditions we 
inherit. I am bound to say that I find another reason for the union of 
the Liberal party and its close cohesion at this time in the condition of 
the opposite party. I won't dwell upon that subject now ; but there are 
characters and qualities in portions of that party, which, I own, excite 
my mistrust in the very highest degree. 

But, gentlemen, the main reason, after all, why we should remain 
united is because we have got work to do, and work upon which we are 
agreed. I will venture to say that, although sanguine minds may wish 
to have a wider outlook, and a more complete and comprehensive 
catalogue of all those subjects in which they feel an interest, yet I, for 
my part, knowing very well from the experience of a long life, how 
much is to be deducted in practice for the friction, if I may so call it — 



Local Government for Ireland. 167 

for the friction of public affairs — how much the force of the projectile 
loses from that friction before it touches the point at which it aims — I 
know very well, gentlemen, that even upon the moderate estimate of 
business which I have laid before you, if it should be the happy lot of 
the coming Parliament to perform that business, and perform it well in 
its various branches, you will have no reason to have been ashamed of 
the election in which you are now to take part. But, gentlemen, I come 
to the point upon which I wish specially to dwell. With regard to that 
work of Avhich I have ventured to give a description in my address, I 
would say to those who reproach us with not having a stereotyped 
uniformity of opinion in the Liberal party — I will answer to them that 
when we come to the points on which we differ, I ho]De we shall behave 
like men of conscience and men of understanding in regard to those 
points — and if we cannot honourably co-operate, we shall cease to attempt 
to co-operate at all, that under all circumstances we shall pm^sue the 
way of honour, of x^rinciple ; but that until we come to the points on 
which we differ it would be folly, it would be madness, it would expose 
us to ridicule not less than to censure, if in anticipation of matters that 
lie now far out of reach, we were to allow these differences to become 
practical, and to refrain from giving effect to the common opinions we 
entertain for the benefit of those common purposes which we think the 
coming Parliament is qualified to deal with. 

IRISH PARTIES. 

But, gentlemen, I have stated to 3^ou that there is one special portion 
of the work, the probable work of the coming Parliament, which it 
appears to me desirable to dwell upon in as clear and pointed a manner 
as I can. Pray bear in mind, gentlemen, that every Parliament has to 
deal partly with the foreseen and partly with the unforeseen. I have had 
at former periods of my public life to tax largely the patience of my 
countrymen in connection with the name of Ireland. On this occasion 
the name of Ireland has not been so largely before the public as at some 
former seasons. But there are points connected with it which I wish to 
state to you, because they appear to me to be of the greatest importance, 
and to inculcate with the highest amount of force that can be conceived 
that duty of union to which I have already adverted. Gentlemen, the 
Irish question is about to assume, as you will readily perceive, a new 
position, in some respects to receive, hapj^ily, a new position, because 
it is not now a question — as it has been in former times — of cruel 
grievances under which the people of Ireland have laboured. Thanks 
to the patience and zeal and energy and good sense of Parliament, those 
grievances have one by one been removed — but we know very well that 
our fellow-countrymen in Ireland still feel and believe that they have a 
want with respect to the management of their own local as op230sed to 
Imperial concerns, which has been a cause of much uneasiness in the 
relations between the two cou.ntries. Now, pray observe that although 
a great change has taken place in Scotland in consequence of the recent 
measure of Parliamentary reform, still greater is the actual and the pro- 
bable change in Ireland. Down to the present time the constituency of 



1G8 Speeches of Rigid Hon. William Ewart Qladsione, M.P. 

Ireland lias been miserably narrow. It has not had the same represen- 
tation, not even the same comparatively contracted representation — I 
speak of the counties principally — that has existed in England and in 
Scotland. I need not go into details, but its constituency has been so 
limited that you could hardly recognise in its utterance the voice of a 
nation. It was the voice rather of a class. I do not know whether in 
consequence of that circumstance, but, undoubtedly, in conjunction with 
that circumstance, during the whole time while I have sat in Parliament 
the Irish representation has been so divided that it was almost impos- 
sible to say where was to be found the voice of Ireland. 

Now, you would have thought that at any rate upon one subject — 
namely, the disestablishment of the Irish Church — the representatives 
of Ireland, considering it as mostly a Roman Catholic country, would in 
very large majority have voted for that disestablishment ; but even for 
the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland there was but a bare 
majority of the Irish members. The Irish members have been divided, 
for instance, in the last Parliament into three parties, and these three 
parties have been three minorities — one of them the party terming 
itseK National, led by Mr. Parnell ; one of them giving their con- 
iidence to the Government ; and the third, the Tory members returned 
from various Irish constituencies. None of these have been entitled 
by their numerical strength to say, "We speak the voice of the 
Irish people." Gentlemen, Ireland has now a constituency as broad, 
as extended, as qualified to speak their wants and their wishes as 
either Scotland or England. That is a great change, and, depend upon 
it, you will never repent the large and generous spirit in which, imder 
circumstances of much difficulty, that perfect equality of treatment has 
been maintained. Besides that, we are told — I will not undertake to 
prophesy the result of the Irish or any other election — but we are told, 
and we are told from every quarter, that the election about to take place 
in Ireland will result in the return of such a number of the party called 
Nationalists as to constitute an enormous majority of the whole repre- 
sentatives of that country. Therefore we ought to look forward to that 
as a high probability, if not a certainty. I think we must look one step 
further forward ; and we must take into our view the likelihood that as 
the party which is expected to be in a vast majority from Ireland is also 
the party which has most largely demanded for Ireland the power of 
controlling her own local and properly Irish affairs — we must take into 
view the likelihood that that party will make a demand for the conces- 
sion of large powers to Ireland in that direction. 

THE DEMANDS OF IRELAND. 

Well now, gentlemen, it is quite plain that if that contingency should 
arrive it is a grave and serious contingency. Do not let it fill any of us, 
gentlemen, with alarm. Depend upon it that as long as we act liberally, 
equitably, and at the same time prudently to Ireland, these countries 
have nothing to fear from any contingency that can arise in the relations 
of these islands. But observe the position. We are all, gentlemen, every 
man, woman, and child among us, convinced that it is the will of Provi- 
dence that these islands should be bound together in a United Kingdom 



Local Government for Ireland. 1G9 

— and from one end of Great Britain to the other I trust that there will 
not be a single representative returned to Parliament who for one 
moment would listen to any proposition tending to impair, visibly and 
sensibly to impair, the unity of the Empire. Whatever demands may 
be made on the part of Ireland, if they are to be entertained they must 
be made subject to the condition that the unity of the Empire shall be 
preserved — and that all that authority of the Imperial Parliament which 
is necessary for maintaining the unity of the Empire shall be steadfastly 
maintained. I take it for granted, gentlemen, that any demand that is 
made from Ireland will be a demand which sets out upon this basis, that 
the unity of the Empire is not to be compromised or put in jeopardy. If 
it did not set out upon that basis, we should know how to deal with it ; 
but I think it would be unjust to the people of Ireland to suppose that 
any other basis would for a moment be contemplated. Therefore, gentle- 
men, I treat it as being in my oiDinion highly probable that a serious 
demand will come from Ireland, asking that she be provided more fully 
than has heretofore been the case with a local means of managing her 
own properly Irish affairs. She has up to the present time been sadly 
deficient in the means of local government. Her expectations on that 
subject are large. She does not consider that her circumstances are in 
all respects sinnlar to those of Scotland. She may be right or she may 
be wrong in that respect, but what Ireland may deliberately and consti- 
tutionally demand, unless it infringe the principles connected with the 
honourable maintenance of the unity of the Empire, will be a demand 
that we are bound at any rate to treat with careful attention. But, 
gentlemen, I need not instruct you, I need not dwell largely upon any 
argument to show to you, that in case these expectations should be ful- 
filled, and in case Ireland should make such a demand, the dealing with 
that demand will be a matter of the highest responsibility. To stint 
Ireland in the powers which may be necessary or desirable for the 
management of matters jDurely Irish would be a great error, and if she 
were so stinted, the end that any such measure might contemplate could 
not be attained. But if, on the other hand, in approaching such a sub- 
ject the error were made of condescending either to clamour or to fear 
in such a way as to violate the principles of honourable obligation, and 
as to impair the unity of this great Empire, then indeed, gentlemen, a 
fatal error would have been committed. 

EVERYTHING FOR IRELAND SAVE SEPARATION. 

Now, why do I lay this matter before you ? I lay it before you, 
gentlemen, because it has, in my opinion, a close and an immediate 
bearing upon the circumstances of the present election. It is not, let 
me say, for me a great difficulty to contemplate taking part as a 
Member of Parliament in the manipulation, so to call it, of such a 
question ; because for years and years past, and upon repeated occasions, 
I think, in Midlothian, certainly in the House of Commons, I have 
declared that in my opinion it would not only be allowable, but 
beneficial, when once the wishes of Ireland shall be constitutionally 
ascertained— not only allowable, but highly beneficial to the three 
countries and to the Empire at large that everything should be given to 



170 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

~ Ireland in the way of local self-government which is consistent with the 
maintenance of the unity of the Empire — and the authority of Parlia- 
ment connected with the unity of the Empire. The working oat of that 
principle is, as I have said, a matter of the utmost difficulty. 

LIBERAL MEASURES AND TORY: MINISTERS. 

Well now, gentlemen, I want you to consider with me for a moment 
what is necessary in order that that principle may he safely worked out. 
Some may say, why not allow the present Government to work it out 1 
I won't give a positive answer upon that question. I am not at all sure 
what the effect of the coming election may be upon the existence of the 
present Government. But then, gentlemen, you must bear in mind that 
Tory Governments are sometimes able to carry measures of importance 
when once they have made up their mind to it with a greater facility 
than Liberal Governments can. Now, take Sir Robert Peel, of whom I 
always have spoken, among jou and everywhere else, with sentiments of 
the utmost respect — I may say of affectionate respect. The Government 
of Sir Robert Peel carriecl, as you know, the repeal of the Corn Laws at 
a great cost to Sir Robert Peel liimself, for it broke up the associations 
of his life and expelled him from the Conservative party, which then 
became known as the Protectionist party. Sir Robert Peel was enabled 
to carry the repeal of the Corn Laws — whj^ ? Not because he was able 
to carry with him a majority of those who had placed him in power — 
on the contrary, he only carried with him a minority of those who had 
placed him in power — but because the measure which he proposed 
received the fair and liberal consideration of the Liberal party which sat 
opposite to him. I am afraid that if Sir Robert Peel had not been the 
]3erson to propose the repeal of the Corn Laws — if it had been left to 
Lord John Russell to ctischarge that office — that measure would not 
have had the same fair and liberal consideration from the body of the 
Tories. In the same manner, Sir Robert Peel was enabled to carry an 
Act with regard to the College of Majaiooth that undoubtedlj'- no 
Government called Liberal could have carried. And we know on a 
later occasion, v/hen Lord Beaconsfield (then Mr. Disraeli) had performed 
that curious and interesting process of what he termed " educating his 
party " — and when he brought in something called a household suffrage 
bill, the Liberal party did not reject the bill because it was brought by 
him, but they made it into a real household suffrage bill — and were most 
willing to promote the passing of it, although it had been proposed by a 
Conservative Government. But do you suppose that bill would have 
been as easily passed by a Liberal Government ? You may judge by 
seeiug what had taken place in the very year before 1867, or the year of 
the Household Suffrage Bill. In 1866, when we proposed — anxious, 
perhaps too anxious, to conciliate the fears and prejudices of our 
adversaries — when we proposed a moderate and limited extension of the 
suffrage, you know very well that the consequence of that Act was an 
opposition which both defeated the bill and expelled the Government. 
And therefore, gentlemen, I won't say now whether the present 
Government can or cannot deal with this question. But quite apart 
from the names of Whig and Tory this one thing I will say, and 



Local Government for Ireland. 171 

will endeavour to impress, and it is this, that it will be a vital danger 
to the country if at the time that the demand of Ireland for large 
powers of self-government is to be dealt with — it will be a vital danger 
to the Empire if there is not in Parliament, ready to deal with that 
subject, ready to influence the proceedings upon that subject, a party 
totally independent of the Irish vote. 

POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS. 

I will now suppose, gentlemen, for argument's sake, that the Liberal 
party might be returned to the coming Parliament — this is rather a 
staggering supposition — in a minority, but in a minority which might 
become a majority by the aid of the Irish vote. And I will suppose 
that owing to some cause the present Government had disappeared, 
and that the Liberal party was called upon to deal with tliis great 
constitutional question of the government of Ireland, in a position 
where it w^as only a minority dependent upon the Irish vote for 
converting it into a majority. Now, gentlemen, I tell you seriously 
and solemnly that although I believe the Liberal party itselt to be 
honourable, patriotic, sound, and trustworthy, yet in such a position 
as that it would not be trustworthy. In such a position as that it would 
not be safe for it to enter upon the consideration of the principles of a 
measure with respect to which at every step of its progress it would be 
in the power of a party coming from Ireland to say, " Unless you do 
this, and unless you do that, we turn you out to-morrow." Well now, 
gentlemen, be so kind as to accompany me one step farther in my reason- 
ing. I put the supposition that the Liberal party — in order to bring 
out the idea that 1 have in my mind, I put the supposition that the 
Liberal party should be returned to the coming Parliament in a minority, 
but in a minority which might be turned into a majority by the aid 
of eighty Irish members belonging to what is termed the Nationalist 
party. Now, just strike out one word from that argument that I made 
— efface, or as you say, I believe, in Scotland, delete the word Liberal 
— and put in the Tory party, and come with me to the supjposition that 
the Tory party — the party of the present Government — is returned to 
the House of Commons in a minority, but in a minority which may be 
turned into a majority by the aid of these eighty Irish gentlemen. 
Now, gentlemen, is that an extravagant supposition ? It is never safe 
to presume upon the issue of an election. We know nothing of the 
future, and we must not count upon it too confidently ; but still, as 
rational beings, we are obliged to estimate probabilities, and we are 
obliged to shape our course according to a fair and reasonable estimate 
of those probabilities. 

THE CERTAINTY OP A LIBERAL MAJORITY. 

Now, I say it is a reasonable estimate of those probabilities to say that 
the Liberal party will be returned to the House of Commons in a 
majority. It will certainly be its own fault if it is not. If it is united 
it cannot fail to be returned to the House of Commons in a majority 
such as that it can deal independently with the Irish or with any other 
question. Now, is that estimate disputed '? Go to those who are well 



172 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

acquainted with the working of the Liberal party all over the country 
They will differ somewhat in their estimates, but one and all of them 
will tell you that unless some strange calamity of disunion or otherwise 
should happen, the Liberal party is certain to be returned in a large 
majority to the coming Parliament. But you may say these are all 
interested witnesses. And what do the Tories say ? Now, what do the 
Tories themselves expect with regard to the coming election ? Do they 
tell you that they will be returned in a majority 1 Have they a hope of 
it 1 Do their estimates soar to that point of elevation from which they 
could enjoy such a charming prospect ? No, gentlemen, nothing of the 
kind. I read a speech of Lord Salisbury's a day or two ago, in which 
he referred to the coming election and the possible strength or weakness 
of the Tory party, and he said, and said very fairly, that the Tory 
Government would be strong enough if a sufficient number of the voters 
would vote for it. That is quite true, but that does not advance us much 
towards a conclusive judgment or to a probable judgment upon the ques- 
tion. Now, Lord Salisbury has given us the interior of his mind upon this 
subject in a very able, elaborate, and painstaking article which he wrote 
in a publication, termed the National Revieiv, in the month of October 
last year, when we were engaged in the great controversy of the Fran- 
chise Bill ; and Lord Salisbury there estimated, in a number of forms, 
the possible contingencies that might affect the Conservative party in 
the new Parliament — one contingency, the most unfavourable ; one 
contingency, the medium and fair ; one contingency, the most favourable 
to the Conservative party — and his most favourable contingency gave 
the Liberals in Great Britain a majority of thirty-three over the Tories, 
and he said himself, with great candour, that that estimate was too 
favourable to the Conservatives, and that probably their real strength 
would be less than he had supposed in that estimate, but more than he 
had supposed in another estimate, where, I think, he had them in a 
minority of 120 odd, or something of that kind. So, gentlemen, you 
see what his opinion is, and I believe that opinion to be universal. One 
hears a good deal in these times, in the shape of more or less authentic 
information. Men do not keep absolutely secret the estimates they form 
of the probable course of coming elections — and I can assure you, 
gentleman, that the very highest and most sanguine calculation that has 
been made by any of those who are supposed to be qualified to make 
such calculations on the Tory side, and in favour of the Tories, that lias 
come to my ears, is one which leaves the Tory party in a minority very 
much such as Lord Salisbury calculated in the article to which I have 
referred, but a minority capable of being converted into a majority by 
the aid of the Nationalist vote for Ireland. 

THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY EOR A STRONG MAJORITY. 

What I wish to know is, whether that will be a safe or a satis- 
factory position for the country 1 Suppose that took place — suppose 
Ave allow ourselves to be frightened, and to be wheedled, and to 
be misled — the word " bamboozled " is certainly a very familiar word, 
and I cannot use it without an apology, but still it is an expressive 
word, and you know what it means ; and if we allow ourselves, by any 



Local Government for Ireland. 173 

follies among ourselves, to be so far divided and weakened, and split up 
in one place and another, that, although we are a majority over the 
Tory party, yet we are not a majority of the Parliament, I tell you, 
gentlemen, that not only the Tory party, and not only the Liberal 
party, but the Empire, will be in danger, because questions of the 
gravest moment, and the most Imperial weight, and of vast conse- 
quences, may come forward, and will in all likelihood come forward, 
and there will be no party qualified to deal with them in that inde- 
pendence of position which alone can ensure a satisfactory and an 
honourable issue. 

Gentlemen, let me remind you before I close these remarks that this 
is matter of the highest importance. We have had our little arguments, 
and controversies, and anticipations, and desires, about one question and 
another question. These are all ver}'" well in their way and at their 
time, but rely upon it that if such a matter comes forward at the outset 
of the proceedings of the new Parliament, as I have described — namely, 
a demand made constitutionally by the vast majority of the representa- 
tives of Ireland for the concession of large local powers of self-government, 
accompanied with an admission that the unity of the Empire is not to 
be impaired — the magnitude of that subject and its character will sweep 
into the shade for the moment all those subjects of ordinary legislation 
on which I, or on which others, have addressed you, and the satisfactory 
settlement of that subject which goes down to the very roots and 
foundations of our whole civil and political constitution will become the 
first duty of the Parliament. A mistake in it, as I have shown you, 
would be of the most vital consequence. In order to avoid mistake — in 
order to have, humanly speaking, every rational certitude of an upright 
treatment and of a satisfactory issue, it is absolutely necessary that there 
should be in the Parliament a party able to deal with that question, and 
able to deal with the promoters of that question, in a liberal and in a 
kindly spirit, but with a perfect independence of them, so as to maintain 
every dictate of the principle that maintains the unity of the Empire. 
That is a matter of absolute necessity. That necessity can only be met, 
as I think I have shown, by the return of a great and a united Liberal 
majority to Parliament. Observe, gentlemen, I am not now pressing 
upon you that which is our assertion alone. It is not our assertion 
alone ; it is the admission of the opposite party that they do not look 
for a majority of the House of Commons, but they look for such a 
minority as may become a majority by the aid of Mr. Parnell, and 
instantly I say, if that be so, " You cannot safely be entrusted with the 
duty of dealing with this great subject." I do not mean to say that, 
under the check and watch of a Liberal majority, that might not be 
possible ; but nothing can make that dealing safe except the presence of 
a majority, which can only be a Liberal majority, and which shall be 
sufficient to maintain the independence of the House of Commons as a 
whole in dealing with this great subject, and of bringing, perhaps, to a 
final close the long controversies that have unhappily subsisted between 
Great Britain and Ireland. I think you will agree Avith me that if other 
reasons were insufficient — I do not think they are insufficient, I think 
they are ample and abundant — but even if other reasons were insuffi- 



174 Speeches of Uigld Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

cient, the grave and due consideration of the probable demands that may 
be made upon Parliament for the settlement of the Irish question is a 
new and a commanding reason why, standing shoulder to shoulder, and 
uniting heart to heart and mind to mind, we should adhere to the great 
commission of Liberal policy which we have received now from two 
generations of statesmen entrusted with the confidence of the country, 
and should prosecute with every faculty we possess a work — arduous 
indeed, as the work of governing this great Empire must always be — a 
work which we never can hope to fulfil in perfection, for that is beyond 
human power and human hope, but a work which, by fidelity and 
devotion, we may hope so far at least to accomplish that this generation 
shall stand worthily in comparison with those that have preceded it, and 
honourably in the recollection of those who shall follow it, as a genera- 
tion that has laboured heartily and well to maintain the fame and the 
happiness of an Empire than which the world has never seen one more 
great or glorious. 



DISESTABLISHMENT. 

UT EDINBURGH, NOV. 11, 1885.) 

THE ONLY POSSIBLE PxVRTY. 

I HAVE already had the opportunity of speaking to a certain portion of 
your own body, and I may state in two or three sentences a summary of 
what I then laid before them, because the point is one that has not been 
largely opened, and it is one, I think, of great weight and importance. 
I endeavoured on Monday to point out that it was highly probable that 
a very great question might arise at the very opening of the new Parlia- 
ment, in consequence of the altered political circumstances of Ireland, 
with reference to the government of that country, that if any such 
question did arise it would be of the most profound moment, for it 
would touch the very foundations of political society in this country and 
of the united Empire, that such a question never could be dealt with in 
that Parliament to the satisfaction of the country unless there were 
present in that Parliament some party j)owerful enough to be indepen- 
dent of what is termed the Irish vote. According to the opinion of all 
sides, as far as we have been informed of it, of our opponents no less 
than our own, there cannot be such a party in the coming Parliament 
unless it be the Liberal party. That consideration is one of much more 
than ordinary importance, one of the highest imperial importance, for 
preserving in these operations in which we are concerned the unity of 
the Liberal party. I did not at once assume, as my excellent friend 
Mr. Cowan was good enough to foreshadow, the necessary advent of a 



Disestahlishnent. 175 



Liberal Government to power. That is a question, no doubt, that may 
in certain circumstances arise. But there lias been a case — rather a 
remarkable case — in which a Tory Government being in a minority 
conducted a most important political question to a tolerably satisfactory 
conclusion. That was the case of the household suffrage in 1867. But 
Avhy was it possible to conduct that bill to a satisfactory conclusion ? 
Because there was in the House that passed it a Liberal majority who 
did not care to eject the existing Government. What it desired was the 
settlement of the question, and the question was settled through its 
agency in a satisfactory manner. I therefore assume nothing at present 
with regard to this Government or that Government, but for the moment 
it is enough for me to say no Parliament can deal with this question in a 
satisfactory manner unless there be in that Parliament a majority such 
as to deal with it in an impartial manner, independently of its own 
fate and its own position, and therefore independently of the Irish vote. 

"an unbounded assoktment of the most gratuitous untruths.'' 
Gentlemen, I pass on from that important subject to one which is 
perhaps of less importance, on which I am really reluctant to detain 
you even for a moment, but yet I feel it is necessary to say a word upon 
it, although it is of a personal character. I know not why, but it has 
become the fashion with a portion of the Tory party — I am sure it must 
be disapproved by the great body of that party — to circulate in respect 
to myself, personally and individually, an unbounded assortment of the 
most gratuitous untruths. This is a mode of warfare in which, so far as 
I am aware, the Liberal party never has indulged, and I trust never 
wiU. It must be only a section of the Tory party that can indulge in 
these practices ; but I am compelled, they are so frequent, and they 
come back upon me in the shape of voluminous correspondence from 
day to day from all parts of the country, that I am obliged to ask you to 
arm yourselves with stout and resolute incredulity, until the people who 
have made these assertions have produced proofs for what they say. 
During the former election I recollect contradicting flatly a series of 
twelve of them in a single letter to the newspapers. There are not 
quite so many of them this time, but some of them perhaps may amuse 
you. It is said by some of the Tories that I possess a large quantity of 
land in Russia. Another of these edifying statements is that I am in 
the habit of cutting down trees on Sunday. A third is that I offered to 
Lord Brabourne a place in 1880 of ^4,000 a year. A fourth is that last 
session I requested Liberals to vote for their party, and not according 
to their conscience. A fifth is that I opposed on the crisis when flogging 
in the army was abolished, that I opposed its abolition, whereas I spoke 
and voted in favour of its abolition. A sixth is that I voted against 
the motion of Mr. Trevelyan for household suffrage in the counties. 
Well, gentlemen, that you may see I am not exaggerating the matter, 
perhaps you will be surprised when I tell you that I have in my 
possession the allegations, not of unseen and unknown Tories on these 
subjects, but of three Tory candidates, who have made statements to this 
effect — Mr. Ackers, Mr. Sidebottam. I mention their names, in order 
that they may undertake, if they can, to clear themselves elsewhere, 



176 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

And, gentlemen, a Mr. Arthur Duncombe has inserted this extraordinary- 
statement in liis address to his constituency ; and what is amusing is, 
that before he proceeds to make it, he says it is a duty to warn his 
constituents against the gross inaccuracies of Radical politicians. 
Having done that, he uses these words. He says that his opponents 
fail to mention in their explanations to the country — first, that Mr. 
Gladstone opposed the measure introduced by the Conservatives for the 
purpose of giving household suffrage to the burghs ; and, secondly, that 
he over and over again voted against Mr. Trevelyan's proposal to 
equalise the county and burgh franchise. 

A PARTICULAR LIE EXPOSED. 

Now, I say nothing about the household suffrage of 1867. Tlie 
assertion is a baseless assertion, but it would lead me into lengthened 
explanation ; and I take that which is nearer to us, which is more 
germane to the present situation, relating to the county suffrage, and 
you will be astonished, gentlemen, when I tell you that instead of its 
being true, that over and over again I voted against Mr. Trevelyan's 
motion — on the contrary, I never voted against it. When Mr. Trevelyan 
made his motion in six successive years of the Beaconsfield Administra- 
tion, it is quite true that in the first of those years — which was shortly 
after I had retired from Parliament, and during a session in which I 
took little part — I was not in the House during the division ; but it is 
also true that in the five successive years on each of Avhich the proposal 
was made and rejected by the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, I voted 
for it upon every one of those occasions, as may be seen by those who 
consult the division lists. Not only so, but I entered into a literary 
controversy with my friend Lord Sherbrooke — we were fighting Avith one 
another by articles in a very widely spread review — he contending for the 
limitation of the suffrage, and I contending for its wide extension. Can- 
didates in their addresses to their constituencies, forsooth, desirous of 
correcting inaccuracies of Radical politicians, set before them statements 
so worthless, so baseless, so wanton, and so culpable as these. Gentle- 
men, I do not wish to detain you long upon that ; but it is a warning 
when this practice has, unfortunately, attained so much currency, that I 
felt it necessary to give — not to you so much a warning as to the country 
through any report that may be made of these remarks — in order that 
much trouble may be saved by those whose fears and apprehensions it 
is sought to excite by these very illegitimate means. I won't suppose 
now that any of these candidates were conscious of uttering a falsehood, 
but I say they were guilty of the most cul^^able neglect and carelessness 
in laying such trash before their constituents, and that their constituents 
ought, perhaps, to measure by the culpable neglect and carelessness they 
have shown on this occasion, their capacity to serve them in Parliament. 

A POSTHUMOUS BEQUEST. 

1 come to a graver subject, and one upon which I address you, not in 
consequence of what I believe to be an immediate and urgent Parlia- 
mentary necessity, but on what I believe to be an occasion of considerable 
misapprehension in some portions of the country. I said on Monday that 



Disestdblishnen t. 177 



I would to-day state to you what I had to say on the subject of the esta- 
blishment or disestablishment of the Church. I have alluded to the 
subject in my address to the electors of the county of Midlothian ; and 
I must fairly tell you that when I wrote what now stands, I think, 
as the sixteenth section of that address, I considered it to be in the 
nature of a posthumous bequest. I wrote it with the fullest conviction 
— a conviction which I still retain — that I should never be called upon to 
take part in a practical controversy on the subject of Disestablishment. 
That address related to England, and what I am now saying relates 
j)articularly to England. The circumstances of England and Scotland at 
the present moment are not precisely the same. I will deal with both, 
but I am now speaking particularly with reference to England. And I 
wrote simply for the purpose — perhaps it was a vain and idle hope — of 
recommending that when, in a future more or less remote, that contro- 
versy shall arise in England, it should be prosecuted in an equitable 
temper, with kindly feelings, with careful endeavours to master its 
enormous difficulties, and with some mitigation of those perhaps over- 
sanguine hopes and certainly too much excited fears with which persons 
are apt, I think, to approach the question at the present day. After I 
had written that passage I heard no more of the question for many weeks. 
It certainly excited no alarm, and for a long time I heard nothing of 
any endeavour to make the question of Establishment or Disestablish- 
ment what is termed a test question, and certainly all I have to say 
to-day, gentlemen, will not be in consideration of the merits of Esta- 
blishment or Disestablishment, but to the business of making it a test 
question. That is the point upon which I think it is necessary for you 
to reflect, and consider what is your duty. 

A TEST QUESTION. 

But it has now come — observe I am speaking of England — it has now 
come to be made in England to some extent a test question : and how 
has it come to be made a test question in England '] Because, as I 
affirm, entirely by Tory agencies. Not finding themselves abundantly 
supplied with legitimate Aveapons for the conduct of this election, they 
not unnaturally cast about to see what new artillery they could bring 
into the field. They know very well that the Establishment question 
when raised in England must be a most grave and heavy question, and 
therefore they have endeavoured to persuade the country that it is a 
question which has got now to be decided. Lord Salisbury, I think, 
took the earliest opportunity of expressing his conviction that I should 
propose the disestablishment of the Church of England, and in the 
Victoria Hall, some ten days or a fortnight ago, he used these words — 
" We are sure that the critical time has come " — he is sure that the 
critical time has come. He added that " In the presence of such an 
issue we cannot think of mere party interests." I must say, con- 
sidering the disinterested colour of Lord Salisbury's remarks, con- 
sidering what generosity and what chivalry there is in throwing over- 
board the consideration of party interests in the presence of the question 
of English Disestablishment, it is particularly fortunate for him 
that nothing could possibly be so convenient as the introduction of 



178 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone^ M.P. 

English Disestablishment for those party interests which he esteems so 
lightly. And I am bound to say that he has met with some limited 
degree of success. He has induced a certain number of Liberal politi- 
cians to force forward this question. Now, what do I mean by forcing 
it forward ? I do not complain for a moment, in England or Scotland 
or anywhere else, if electors in the country endeavour to ascertain the 
views of the candidates, and endeavour to promote, as far as they can, 
conformity on the part of the candidates to their own opinions. That is 
a perfectly legitimate proceeding, and in that sense, no doubt, the ques- 
tion of Disestablishment has been discussed both in England and Scot- 
land. The Liberation Society always continues its work, so do societies 
for Church Defence and Church Offence, and both of them are busy in a 
certain sense. Of that I make no complaint, it is a perfectly fair thing. 
But what I do question is this, the wisdom or the propriety of placing 
the Church question in the position of a test question — that is, in a posi- 
tion in which it shall absorb every other question. For, gentlemen, 
consider what it is to make what you call a test question. It is to make 
a question that shall absorb and shall extinguish every other question. 
If you are determined to say, " I will vote for a man— in England — vote 
for a man who promises to maintain the establishment of the Church, 
and I will vote against a man who does not promise it," that makes it a 
very short affair to deal with the contingencies of the election. For if 
you determine what will make you vote against him, what is the use of 
considering any other question at all 1 There is no sense in it. Your 
mind is made up. 

"a gross error an egregious folly." 
Well, gentlemen, what I certainly contend, and very strongly and 
decidedly contend, is that there is no state of things now existing which 
makes it either necessary or just or allowable to raise the question of 
Church Establishment or Church Disestablishment into a position such 
as this. The question came before me first of all with respect to England 
because, as you know, the desire of those who stand in my position in 
Parliament has been to leave the question of Disestablishment in Scot- 
land to be dealt with on its own ground by the Scottish people, as their 
own affair. But in England I have found that there are a certain 
number of gentlemen who have allowed themselves to be sympatheti- 
cally affected by those very disinterested alarms of the Tory party. I 
mean to say Liberals who are strongly attached to the Church, not only 
strongly attached to the Church, but strongly attached to the political 
establishment of the Church, and who therefore seem inclined to say 
that they will vote for nobody unless he gives a pledge to maintain the 
establishment of the Church. I will say by and by as to what is the 
reasonableness of a course of that kind — the possible reasonableness of 
a course of that kind — when the proper time arrives. The proper time, 
gentlemen, has, in my opinion, not arrived. It is really a gross error, 
an egregious folly, on the part of the Liberal politicians to allow them- 
selves to be drawn off from the great, the clear, and the solid issues that 
are before us, from the important work that we have to perform with 
regard to q^uestions- on which we are all agreed, and to decide the elec- 



jbisestahlishmeni. 179 

tion and choose men vrho are to do the work of Parliament upon issues 
that are not before us — with reference to work upon which we are not 
agreed, and with reference to work of which we are morally certain that 
it is impossible it shall be disposed of at the present moment. There- 
fore, while those who make the Church Disestablishment in England a 
test question, and say every Liberal voter should vote for or against a 
Liberal candidate according as, in his private opinion, he is for or against 
Disestablishment, we, on the other hand, contend that he ought to say 
he will vote for or against a candidate on the grounds connected with 
those great subjects which are ripe for discussion, which can be dealt 
with, on which we can make practical progress, on which we can render 
great service to the country, and not upon those questions with respect 
to which it is impossible either to produce perfect unity amongst our- 
selves, or to look forv^^ard to a practical handling of them during the 
coming Parliament. 

AN ELECTORAL CATECHISM. 

Just think how irrational the position in such a Liberal voter adopting 
that principle must be. A candidate appears before him, _ I will suppose 
him a man of high character, and a man of perfect capacity and qualifi- 
cation in all respects for the duties of a member of Parliament, loyal to 
the Liberal party and the Liberal cause, and thoroughly of opinion that 
the work of the next Parliament lies in subjects which we have generally 
and by common consent accepted as the proper work of that Parliament. 
I will suppose that he is subjected to a question by a Liberal voter who 
is going to make the Establishment of the Church of England a test 
question, and he says to him, " Will you vote for the Establishment of 
the Church of England ? ^' Well, he may be a person who is favourable 
to Disestablishment, and am I to be told that the Liberal party are 
intending to exclude from the House of Commons every man who is not 
favoui'able to Disestablishment ? Is that to be the principle of excom- 
mimication on which the Liberal party is to be constructed ?_ Gentle- 
men, you know perfectly well it is impossible, and it is ridiculous. 
Suppose any Liberal candidate presents himself to a Liberal voter, and 
is interrogated by him. He is not a fervent adherent of Disestablish- 
ment. But he feels the greatness of the question, feels that it requires 
the most deliberate consideration, and he has not fully made up his 
mind, and the Liberal voter says to him, " Will you vote for the main- 
tenance of the Establishment of the English Church ? " He answers, " I 
cannot give that pledge. My mind is not made up_on that question. I 
must consider the question at large -with all care, i will give it the best 
attention I can apply to it, and arrive at a conscientious conclusion, but 
I do not believe the question as at present before me is a practical 
question in any shape. I want to know what you think of the great 
subjects that are before us ; what you think of the great question of the 
relation of the people to the land, a question which has arisen altogether 
in a new sense since the enfranchisement of the agricultural labourer. 
What do you think of the subject of local government, which is con- 
nected with that other question ? What do you think of the Imperial 
relations between England and Ireland ? What do you think of the 



180 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

procedure in the House of Commons ? Do you intend that the House 
of Commons shall remain in that state of incapacity and paralysis to 
which it has of late in a great degree been reduced ! But the Liberal 
voter says, " Really I cannot give any attention at all to any of those 
subjects. These are matters which I deem to be as dust in the balance. 
It is quite true what you tell me of the questions with which, by common 
consent, the new Parliament will deal, and which will give the new 
Parliament plenty to do. But I will pay no attention to any of those 
questions ; unless you have made up your mind to support the Esta- 
blished Church of England I will vote against you." Now, gentlemen, 
that is not a rational course. I assume nothing as to the question 
whether that might be the conscientious duty of certain persons with 
certain convictions when the time had arrived ; but I say that, in the 
present state of things, when that work has not to be done, and when 
other work has to be done, every sensible man should direct his attention 
to what is going to be set about, and not to that which he knows it is 
impossible for him to set about during the Parliament that is about to 
meet. 

PERFECT STAGNATION. 

In what I have said I think a good deal turns upon — opinion I 
will not call it — the conviction which I entertain, and which I believe 
at least ninety-nine men in every hundred in England entertain, that 
the Disestablishment of the Church of England is utterly remote 
from the prospects, and the work, and the possibilities of the Parlia- 
ment which we are about to see elected. But, then. Lord Salisbury 
turns back to the record of history, and he says, " That is very vfell, 
your opinion that Disestablishment is remote ; but you remember that 
you said the same thing in 1865 about the Church of Ireland. You said 
then, even when there was an election coming on — you said that the 
question of the Church of Ireland, in your judgment, was not within the 
range of practical politics — that was in the Parliament about to be 
elected — and yet in four years after that the Church of Ireland was 
destroyed. Therefore, your conviction in 1885 is worth no more than 
the opinion which you expressed in 1865, and, consequently, it is put 
out of court altogether." I admit that this is a very ingenious 
point, very ingeniously taken. It is the best j)oint, in my opinion, 
which has been made by the Tory party. I think it is the best 
point, because the rest of their points are so very, very bad. However, 
what is the fact ? It is this. I will explain it to you. You know that 
in Shakespeare we find that there was a river in Macedon, and there was 
also a river at Monmouth, and so I gave an opinion in 1865, and so I 
give an opinion in 1885 ; and as each of these was a river, so each of 
them was an opinion. Every circumstance on which they depended 
was different. Why did I believe in 1865 that the coming Parliament 
was not likely to deal, nor did it deal, with the Irish Church 1 Why 
did I believe that ? Why, gentlemen, in order to appreciate the state 
of things that then existed, you who live in the present day, and many 
who may be young, must make a great mental effort. It was a totally 
different political atmosphere. It was a spirit of apathy that then 



Disestablishment. 181 



prevailed. There was perfect stagnation of the reforming spirit in 
England. If you observe, during those years, the latter years of Lord 
Palmerston's life in particular, and it is possible that Lord Palmerston's 
own great age may have contributed to promote or favour that state of 
things, but, undoubtedly, it was a state of political apathy and stagna- 
tion, and we felt the consequences of that state when in 1866 we pro- 
posed a bill for a very moderate enlargement of the franchise, and we 
met with such opposition, Tory opposition, and even Liberal opposition, 
that our bill came to grief, and the Liberal Government was expelled 
from office. It was hopeless, in such a state of things, to raise any great 
question unless you had a Government formed on the principle of 
sacrificing itself for the sake of that question. And I did not think, in 
fact, that the people cared enough about the Irish Church so to treat it. 
The Irish Church question had been alive for thirty years. It had even 
lost ground in public estimation. Tliere was an apathy att'ecting all 
great public subjects, and there was a great indisposition to have them 
raised. I know very well what that was, because I know the difficulties 
under which, during the years from 1860 ouAvards, I endeavoured to 
induce the Parliament of that day to accede to financial reform, and in 
how many cases it was impossible to procure the adoption of even very 
moderate, very safe, and very obvious propositions. 

A GIGANTIC OPERATION. 

What was wanted, gentlemen, in the case of the Irish Church, was an 
attentive state of the public mind interested in public issues. Nothing 
else was wanted. The moment attention was turned to the case of the 
Irish Church — and so I said at the time, and so I said in Parliament, in 
the plainest words — it was impossible to defend it ; it was mockery of 
a Church Establishment. It was in no sense the Church of the nation, 
and never had been. It was impossible to make a decent or a plausible 
vindication for it. It was quite certain to me that when that attention 
came the Irish Church must fall, but at the same time I owned I was 
not sanguine as to the return of that active state of interest on the part 
of the nation in political subjects, and that desire for political improve- 
ment which alone could enable a Government or a Parliament with a 
hopeful prospect to take up a great question of that kind. But now, 
gentlemen, at the present moment everything is exactly difl^erent. 
Instead of its being a case — I refer to the English (church — in which 
there is nothing to be said, it is a case in which there is a great deal to 
be said. Instead of being a mockery of a national Church, it is a 
Church with respect to which its defenders say that it has the adhesion 
and support of a very large majority of the people, and I confess I am 
very doubtful whether that allegation can be refuted. It is a Church 
which works very hard ; it is a Church that labours to do its business, 
a Church that has infinite ramifications through the whole structure and 
fabric of society, a Church that has laid deep hold upon many hearts as 
well as upon many minds. The disestablishment of the Church of 
England, gentlemen, would be a gigantic operation. Tory prophecies 
might lead you to believe that that would not be so, but Tory predic- 
tions always break down. After the disestablishment of the Irish 



182 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

Church the constant allegation of the Tories was that we should dis- 
establish the English Church also immediately afterwards. I remember 
being challenged on that subject, and my answer was — Don't believe 
their allegation. I can tell you that the disestablishment of the Irish 
Church is what I should call a big job, and as to the disestablishment 
of the English Church, gentlemen, I did not know then, and I must tell 
you I do not know now, whether the man yet breathes the air of Par- 
liament that will carry into effect that operation. There is no use in 
concealing the truth. It would be a breach of duty to conceal it. 
Many of those who write on Disestablishment in England, I think, 
know but little of the subject they are writing about. They frame plans 
of Disestablishment ; plans utterly impossible to be entertained, either 
at the present time, or in any other time. In the work called " The 
Radical Programme " there is a plan of Disestablishment which, even 
if the people of England had made up their minds on Disestablishment 
I am quite satisfied never would be accepted or adopted, but they have 
not made up their minds. The question, instead of being familiar, is 
strange to the mass of the minds of the people of England. They have 
not accepted the conviction that the Church ought to be disestablished. 
When they have accepted it, it will be a very great and a very serious 
question to consider and examine, and I don't much envy the man who 
has the examination of it. Therefore, in ever}'' point the case of the 
Church of England is as strongly contrasted as possible with that of 
the Church of Ireland. In the case of the Church of Ireland what 
was wanting was an active, and, if I may say so, a sympathetic 
state of the public mind disposed to deal with great, important 
questions. That was wanting, and nothing else was wanting. What 
we now have is a most active and sympathetic state of the public 
mind. The public mind never was more alive to its public duty 
than it is at this moment, never more set on the attainment of every 
practical — and, perhaps I may say parenthetically, on some impracti- 
cable reforms — but certainly never more set on the attainment of 
every practicable reform than it is now. Now, the attention that we 
wanted, and had not, in the case of the Church of Ireland, is being given 
to this subject. The result is, we find the mind of England has not 
been prepared for that great — I may say even tremendous — change, at 
any rate enormous change ; that the people of England have not adopted 
a conviction favourable to disestablishment of that Church ; and until 
they have adopted it, it would be perfectly futile, either on the part of' 
Liberal Churchmen to entertain apprehensions for the safety of the 
Church, or on the part of the Tories to insinuate these apprehensions 
into the Liberal mind with the view of entrapping a few Liberal votes. 

THE QUESTION IN SCOTLAND. 

Gentlemen, you have exhibited very great patience in allowing me to 
speak on the subject of the disestablishment of the Church in England, 
and now we will come a little nearer home. But, in truth, my discourse 
on the Church of England has not been so entirely irrelevant to your 
case as perhaps at first sight it may seem — because the great and 
governing consideration of the test question appears to me to apply both 



Disestablishment. 183 



to the south and the north of the Tweed. I of course do not presume 
to say that I have a right to impress that upon the minds of all, but I 
will point out to you, with the full expectation of your assent, that 
to maintain that princix^le at all events is my obvious and palpable duty, 
I have been endeavouring to lay before you, in clear and strong terms, 
that as the little worthy leader of the Liberal party I have in England 
used every effort to prevent the making of the Church question into a 
test question at this election ; partly, and mainly I hope, because I 
think it utterly unreasonable, but also, I admit, because I think it would 
be detrimental in the highest degree to the interests of the Liberal 
party, and to the interests of the country as connected with the interests 
of the Liberal party. Well, gentlemen, if I have been doing so — and it 
did not appear to me, as far as I can gather your impression that you 
thought I had been wrong in that course south of the Border — you will 
see that it is not possible for me simply to cross the Border, and in 
crossing the Border, to turn all my declarations inside out and say, 
although the Church question is not fit to be made a test question in 
England, it ought to be made a test question in Scotland. I tell you, 
gentlemen, what would be the first consequence if I were capable of 
taking such a course. The first consequence of that inconsistent 
language, and of urging that this subject should be made a test subject 
in Scotland — the first consequence would be that all the good advice I 
had given to England would be thrown to the winds, and that the most 
of the friends of the Church of England would in one great phalanx 
rush to the poll to support the interests of the Church of Scotland, and 
throw their weight into the scale adverse to the disestablishment of that 
Church. Our language has been that the settlement of that subject in 
Scotland ought to be left to the people of Scotland. But if it were 
attempted to be dealt with on the principle of making it a test, in 
comparison with which every other question was to be cast into 
the shade, and to be treated, in fact, as practically non-existent — if 
we were to deal with it in that way, it would be quite idle to say that 
we were leaving it to the people of Scotland. We should at once find 
that we were dealing with men not sufficiently credulous to be put off 
in that way, and they would say, '•' If you choose to leave it to the 
genuine sense of the people of Scotland, do so, and the sense of the people 
of Scotland will find plenty of means of making itself known, but if you 
are using it as a test question, if you are allowing the electioneering 
screw to be applied to every candidate, and his own personal interest to 
be put into the scale against the question of the Church, that is not leav- 
ing it to the genuine sense of the people of Scotland — that is bringing 
political motives to bear from other quarters, and bringing personal 
interests to bear in such a way on the decision of a great public question 
that you cannot possibly in that manner arrive at an impartial, and dis- 
passionate, and satisfactory view of the question." 



"never mind disestablishment." 
A little incident passed on my journey north on Monday, which 
I think it is worth while to mention to you. I do not know how you 
will judge of its value, but I was struck with it, because it was cer* 



184 Speeches of Right Hon. William Etvart Gladstone, M.P. 

tainly not pre-arranged, and it was quite genuine so far as it went. 
Considerable numbers of people met me at different stations on the road, 
and at one station I was receiving the kind compliments and cheers of 
this body of people who were assembled together, when one of them 
called out — which was evidently unpremeditated — in the middle of the 
cheering, "Never mind Disestablishment." I do not know that he meant 
to signify that he was opposed to it, or that he was in favour of it. I 
understood him to signify that that is not the business that you have on 
hand. Thereupon a gentleman, who was — I must say T did not know 
him personally, but his appearance bespoke his earnestness and his title 
to respect, and being evidently a gentleman strongly convinced in favour 
of Disestablishment, he said, " Three cheers for Disestablishment." As 
this hall is silent now, so the party remained silent. Another man 
behind him — I admit that there was not much of an interval allowed^ — 
another man behind him called out, "Three cheers for the Liberal 
cause." The whole assembly, with rapturous acclamations, testified 
their assent to the sentiment which had thus spontaneously and thus 
suddenly been placed before them. 

THE LIBERAL PROGRAMME. 

What I really think, gentlemen, you will feel is this. It is a very 
serious responsibility to take political questions out of their proper time 
and their proper order. I have endeavoured to lay before you — and I 
must say I think, upon the whole, we have had a most remarkable 
unanimity, a most remarkable concordance of Liberal opinion as to the 
questions with which it is our first duty to deal — they are very large 
questions, very complicated questions. Depend upon it, if those subjects 
of local government, the thorough reform of the land laws, the pro- 
cedure of Parliament, the completion of the Reform Bill by all the 
necessary provisions which we call registration of various kinds, and 
the settlement of Imperial relations with Ireland on a satisfactory footing 
— if the coming Parliament is able at its close to record the accomplish- 
ment of those great purposes, it will be a Parliament worthy to rank 
with any of the best, and the most loyal, and the most efficient of those 
that have marked the history of this country. I cannot but think it an 
error to attempt to thrust aside these questions — to cast them into the 
shade and into the darkness, to make them as though they existed not 
for the sake of a subject, of which I will not undervalue the importance, 
but of which I utterly deny its maturity at the present moment. 

DR. Cameron's resolution. 

But, then, gentlemen, I have received to-day a notice that I am to be 
asked a question which I will anticipate. The question is an intimation 
that a resolution is to be moved in the House of Commons in favour of 
the disestablishment of the Scottish Church, and the question is, whether 
I will support such a resolution or not. It is — " Will Mr. Gladstone 
vote against Dr. Cameron's resolution ? Will Mr. Gladstone, or the 
leaders of the Liberal party, take the vote on Dr. Cameron's resolution 
as indicative of the general drift of Scottish opinion on the subject of 
the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland ? " I 



Disestahlislwien t 185 



think I cannot do better, gentlemen, than anticipate these two questions. 
They are most legitimate inquiries, and they evidently enter into the 
consideration of the case that we have before us — namely, the case 
whether Church Establishment is to be made a test question at this 
election or not, or whether, on the other hand, we ought to labour for a 
state of things in which every Liberal Churchman, being a voter, shall 
feel that in voting for a Liberal candidate he is in no way voting for, or 
giving an opinion on, the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, 
though that Liberal candidate may himself be favourable to Disestablish- 
ment. That is a state of things I cannot help thinking it is for the 
interest of all parties to bring about, for I am quite sure — I have said it 
in private, I believe I have said it in public, at any rate, I say it now 
— that with regard to the separation of the Scottish Church question 
from the English Church question, it is in the first place dictated by 
justice and by right, it would not be right that the question should be 
decided by English opinion ; it is also dictated by policy, because I 
think no settlement could be satisfactory to Scotland unless it were a 
settlement the genuine offspring of Scottish sentiment and Scottish 
conviction. Now, if I am rightly informed, that portion of the Scottish 
constituencies who are inclined to make Disestablishment a test question 
at this election are not understanding, so far as I have been able to learn 
are not of opinion, that they can look to effective Disestablishment in 
the coming Parliament, and they don't expect legislation for the purpose 
of Disestablishment. 

But there is what is called Dr. Cameron's resolution, and I am asked 
whether I am going to vote for it. Well, gentlemen, I must refer you 
"to a declaration that I made in 1880. It was on a different subject, but 
the principle upon which it rested was exactly the same. I was then 
pressed to give a pledge to vote for an abstract resolution on the subject 
of the liquor laws, and I stated by your kind permission the strong 
objections that I see, and that I have always seen, to these abstract 
resolutions — and I came to my conclusion in these words — I think it 
was on the 15th of March, 1880 — "Therefore, until I am prepared with 
a plan, and until I see public opinion reaching such a point that I could 
make myself responsible for the proposed plan, and support of that plan, 
I decline to raise false expectations by committing myself to an abstract 
resolution." I did not, gentlemen, at that time presume to blame, and 
I do not now presume to blame, those who support and bring forward 
these abstract resolutions ; but I must look at my own duty in the light 
of my own position, and I know if I were to vote for a resolution of that 
kind I should virtually be making a most solemn and important promise 
to the country, and that promise, gentlemen, I never have made and 
never will make until I am prepared to carry it out. 

ABSTRACT RESOLUTIONS. 

Now, I give you an instance by which you wdll see that these abstract 
resolutions are not always worth much. In 1858 there was a Tory 
Government in power, and a resolution was proposed for the repeal of 
the paper-duty. It was proposed in terms moderate but intelligible. 
They knew that the paper-duty could not be repealed tliat year, and 



186 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P, 

therefore tliey thought they would have an abstract resolution, and the 
resolution stated that it ought not to be maintained as a permanent 
portion of the revenues of the country. Well, gentlemen, that resolution 
was passed unanimously with a Tory Government in power in the year 
1858. In the year 1860 I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I 
produced a Budget of very considerable comprehensiveness, and in this 
Budget was the repeal of the paper-duty ; and, notwithstanding the 
unanimous resolution, the repeal was met with the most determined and 
obstinate resistance on the part of the whole Tory party. The bill was 
finally thrown out in the House of Lords, and became the subject of a 
constitutional crisis. It was passed with the utmost difficulty — but still 
it was passed — in the following year, but two years of determined 
opposition was given to my bill by the very men who gave me unanimous 
support to the resolution two years before. Of how little effect these 
resolutions are to bind those who don't want to be bound ! They say 
there is a change of circumstances ; but in this world there is always a 
change of circumstances. You might as well expect one wave of the 
sea to be precisely the same as the next wave of the sea as to expect that 
there would be no change of circumstances ; and that change of circum- 
stances forms the ajDology of those who wish to pursue an altered course. 

SCOTCH OPINION. 

I think the second question put to me is whether I should accept 
that resolution as conclusively conveying the opinion of the people 
of Scotland. In my opinion, gentlemen, we are not now speaking of 
the next Parliament. It is agreed we are speaking now, not of the 
next Parliament, but of the Parliament after it. Would that resolution 
be a bi iding resolution, accepted as conclusive with regard to the 
possible opinion of the people of Scotland on the question by the 
Parliament after the next 1 I tell you fairly it would not ; no such 
resolution could be accepted as conclusive of the opinion of Scotland. 
It would require a long series of such resolutions, probably, for a con- 
siderable time to give that solidity to a declaration of that sort that 
would justify Parliament in so regarding it. Let us suppose, to take 
the supposition either way, that in this election the Church question is 
made a test question, and that Dr. Cameron's resolution was carried by 
a majority of Scottish members. Well, people would very naturally 
say this. They would say an election carried upon this question as 
a test question is not a fair indication of the opinion of the people of 
Scotland on the subject, because the candidate who has voted for it has 
done so in consequence of the pressure brought to bear upon him at 
the election, and in consequence of his finding that, from the particular 
position of x^arties in his constituency, it would be more in his interest 
to go in that direction than in the other direction. That is a very 
unsafe ground to stand upon, and Parliament would be very slow to 
recognise it. But let us suppose, on the other side, that it is not made 
a test question. Well, then, if our view were to prevail, and if I am 
right in saying that every Liberal voter ought to support a competent 
and qualified Liberal candidate at this election, whatever be his opinion 
on the Church question, then, of course, it follows that no such resolu- 



Disestahlishment. 187 



tion could "be accepted as conclusive, because, as I have said, men were 
elected on general grounds of Liberalism, and Avere not elected on the 
Church question. 

"a long vista." 
I have detained you for a long time, and I will but say a very 
few more words. I think I have answered explicitly the question 
proposed to be put to me ; and I will say but a very few more 
words, I hope that in anything that has fallen from me, I have not 
api3eared to undervalue the great question of religious esta,blishment, 
and the sacredness and solemnity of the convictions that are associated 
with it. If I have, I have most grievously belied my own internal 
sentiments. It is a great, it is a gigantic question ; and I am very far 
from saying that if I were a man twenty years younger — if I could 
stand before you at a future election — if at a future election circum- 
stances were ripe for taking a matter of this kind in hand on the one 
side or the other, I am far from saying that I should then urge you not 
to give it a first place in your thoughts and actions. I am now 
labouring with all my heart for the unity of the Liberal party, 
and labouring for it not on grounds of policy and of advantage 
alone, but on grounds of reason. I say it is reasonable that we 
should continue to be united, because there is work to be done. We 
know what that work is, and we know that on it we are agreed. But 
had we advanced further in the future stages, in the coming stages of 
our political history ; were the question of Disestablishment at the door, 
instead of being, as it now is, at the end of a long vista — 1 am not speak- 
ing of Scottish Disestablishment alone ; I am speaking in a great degree 
of the Church of England. It may be that the Church of England 
occupies too large a place in my view, but I have England mainly, no 
doubt, in my viev/. But at the same time, v/hen Scottish public opinion 
seems to recognise absolutely that there cannot be any legislation on the 
Scottish Establishment in the coming Parliament, I do not think I am 
far wrong in saying what I did. I call, gentlemen, a long vista in poli- 
tics that which extends beyond the Parliament that is about to come 
together. But I say at any rate that were the question of Disestablish- 
ment at the door, far be it from me to say that it might not become, and 
probably would not become on both sides for a large portion, perhaps 
for the mass of the people in Scotland and in England, the one cardinal 
and determining question. 

UNITY, UNITY, UNITY. 

But there are very large questions now in view. I may speak of them, 
perhaps, a little more on other occasions. As I have said, I am labour- 
ing for the unity of the Liberal party now ; I am labouring for its unity 
because I believe it will be an honourable unity founded upon common 
convictions and common purpose in the work now to be done. Far be 
it from me to say that the unity of any political party is an object that 
at all times is to be preferred to every other. If we come to a point at 
which our convictions go radically apart, and if the matters at issue are 
of vital importance, then I, who am now teaching and preaching unity 



188 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

to the best of my ability, should hope that the Liberal party will sever 
and split rather than sacrifice conscience and conviction. There are 
questions which don't admit of compromise. "VVe all feel that within 
ourselves. Party is an instrument for the attainment of great ends, 
rather than a good in itself ; bat it is a valuable instrument — ah ! it is 
an invaluable instrument — for it has been by party, by party combina- 
tion and connection, though some sciolists and philosophers may laugh 
at it — it has been by party combination and connection that almost all 
the good that has been achieved in Parliament has been attained for the 
benefit of this country. Convictions are higher than party ; and when 
these convictions come, then is the time to give them effect. Then is 
the time, painful as it would be, to quarrel among ourselves, but don't 
let us quarrel till the time comes. Don't let us expose ourselves, in the 
first place, to the charge of violation of duty, in the second place, almost 
of ridicule, by allowing our action to be governed at this crisis not by 
subjects that are before us, but by the subjects which in the main are 
not before us. This question is raised in England as a phantom light to 
lure us away from the path that we ought to tread ; but don't let any 
phantom light bewilder us and lead us into error. Don't let any mere 
vision or excited feeling, however deeply coloured it may be by tlie 
ingenuity of politicians, draw us from the straight line of duty. We 
have got work to do. We do it ; we are agreed about it. Nothing can 
release us from the obligation to prosecute that work to its accomplish- 
ment. On our prosecuting it, on our failure in it, or our accomplishing 
it as it lies, will depend the ultimate judgment of the country — its 
determination either that we have done or that we have betrayed our 
public duty. 



THE TWO PAETIES. 

(^AT WEST CALBEE, NOVEMBER 17, 1885.) 

The pithy address which has been placed in my hands reminds. me of 
an incident that occurred when I had the honour of visiting West Calder 
on a former occasion. I did at that time, gentlemen, in a communication 
with a portion of your number enter upon the subject of the extension of 
the franchise, and I told you with what earnestness of purpose, 
reserving of course the choice of time and opportunity, I should labour 
to promote that object. Now, before I say a word or two upon that 
subject, I wish to do justice to an individual, perhaps not personally 
known to you — but that does not matter — with respect to whom I had 
received information that appears to be erroneous. I made a complaint 



The Tivo Parties, 189 



last week that three Tory candidates had stated that I had for a length 
of time opposed the extension of household suffrage to the counties. I 
knew that that was totally untrue, and I named three gentlemen. One 
of those, Avhom I named upon the authority of a gentleman who 
declared to me that he had heard the words, has written to me to assure 
me that he never made use of them — that is Mr. Ackers. I am very 
glad indeed to accept his assurance. I cannot account for the ascription 
to him of a declaration of that kind by a person who professed he had 
heard it, but I accept Mr. Ackers's assurance, and regret that I should 
have been led into error. I am sorry to say that that does not dispose 
of the case with regard to the others. Since then I have heard of 
another whom . I might put into the place of Mr. Ackers. Gentlemen, 
allow me to assure you, without entering into details, that to the best of 
my belief and conviction I have never questioned the propriety of 
extending household suffrage to the counties. It has been a declaration 
made by me times almost without number. Many times over in the 
House of Commons and on every suitable occasion I have given my 
vote in support of that declaration. Undoubtedly it is a great exten- 
sion of the franchise which has taken place, and I trust it will prove 
that in proportion as the extension has been large and the basis of 
the constitution — the Parliamentary constitution — of the country 
has been widened, so in that same proportion have the throne and the 
institutions of the country been strengthened. I look forward Avith the 
utmost confidence to the future, in which I believe that Scotland will 
retain the honourable reputation she has earned since the first Reform 
Act. Since that Act Scotland has never wavered for a moment in her 
allegiance to Liberal principles. In every one of the twelve Parliaments 
which have sat since 1832, Scotland has returned a majority of Liberal 
members. But while the Liberalism of Scotland has been remarkable 
for its unvarying tenacity and the solidity of its fibre, that Liberalism 
has never been distinguished by violence or by a disposition to carry 
opinions to extremes. It has been as temperate as it was firm, and I 
trust that moderation, seK-denial, and a just recollection of the difii- 
culties which attend the conduct of public affairs will mark the conduct 
of the new electors in the exercise of the franchise just as much as it did 
the conduct of the old ones. 



INCREASE OP SCOTCH REPRESENTATION. 

There is another point upon which I must congratulate you, and 
that is that, besides the great extension of the suffrage, you have 
seen a large addition to the Parliamentary jDOwer of Scotland by the 
raising of the numbers that rej^resented her from fifty-eight to seventy. 
On a very early .^occasion in my former addresses six years ago to 
the people of Midlothian, I called attention to the inequality with 
which Scotland was treated, and I promised to do my best to redress 
that inequality. I hope you think that promise has been redeemed. It 
was not so easy a matter as, perhaps, at first sight might appear, it was 
all very well to acknowledge in the al3stract that Scotland ought tc have 
more members; but where were they to come froml Many a man 



190 'S']3eeclies of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone, M,P. 

would say — Oh, yes, let Scotland have more members, but then do not 
let Ireland and England have fewer members. Then the only method 
was to make a small addition to the membership of the House, but the 
enemies of an increase of the representation were not to be circumvented 
in that way. Directly I proposed an increase of the members of the 
House a universal howl was raised by the Tory papers, and all the— 
what shall I call them ? — the temporising papers of the age. They all 
cried out, " Oh, as to increasing the members of the House that is 
intolerable." They said distribute fairly the members now allotted to 
the three Kingdoms, but do not increase the numbers of the House. But 
we know very well what would have happened if we had not increased 
the numbers of the House. All the English members and all the Irish 
members would have made common cause to sit upon Scotland, and 
instead of getting twelve new members, Scotland at most would have 
had difficulty in getting six or five or four. So we stuck to our point. 
And when it came to the final issue, the reasonableness of the claim 
could not be denied, and Scotland was in possession of a proportion of 
members which at length gives her something like equal justice in 
comparison with the other portions of the United Kingdom. 

MR. PARNELL'S invitation. 

The first purpose which presented itself to me when I came to 
Scotland was to make the Liberal party sensible — so far as I could 
contribute to that great object — of the singular weight of obligation 
that nov/ rests upon it to maintain on the occasion of this election its 
close and hearty political union. I pointed to one particular reason in 
the very interesting and memorable state of the near relations of Ireland 
and Great Britain, and pointed out that it was very possible that in a 
constitutional form, and by an overwhelming majority of her members, 
the Irish nation might present some demand — I am confident that 
Ireland will never forget her duty to the union of this Empire — but that 
she might present some demand for a large change in the management 
of her local affairs, a demand which, as I said, ought to be received with 
attention and respect. I need not say that if at any time it should 
happen that it was the public opinion of Scotland that without the 
smallest disparagement to its duty as a member of the United Kingdom 
there ought to be some administrative change given to Scotland, a more 
exclusive power in the management of certain local afiairs, I have no 
knowledge whether such demand will arise, it has not been discussed, 
the subject is totally immature, but I only say that if the people of 
Scotland with their solidity of judgment, thought fit to make such a 
demand, I have no doubt that also would receive most considerate and 
favourable attention. Since that occurrence — since I made a declaration 
to that eflect — Mr. Parnell has conveyed to me through the confidential 
channel of the public Press a suggestion that I had better frame a plan 
for giving this local government to Ireland. I propose to make my reply 
to Mr. Parnell in a manner equally confidential, and I have no doubt 
you v/ill not mention it, and that none of our friends who sit at these 
tables will think of reporting it. My reasons against complying with 



The Two Parties. 191 



that demand are these — that what I have said is that the wish of Ireland 
clearly and constitutionally expressed deserves our most respectful and 
favourable attention. But tlien I observe at once that I do not yet 
know what the wish of Ireland is, nor shall I know it, nor can it be 
constitutionally expressed until after the election which is now approach- 
ing. And I niust also say that I believe Mr. Parnell must have taken 
me to be very much wanting in experience of public life^ or not perhaps 
to have profited by the experience I have had ; because that experience 
teaches me that if I were so rash as to make myself the volunteer 
physician of the people of Ireland instead of those authorised doctors 
whom she is goinsj to send by and by to the House of Commons, I 
should not only exhibit myself in a capacity I do not wish to fill before 
the public, but I should seriously damage any proposal which might 
have been hatched in my mind. I am not in the Government of the 
country. If any great constitutional question arises with respect to the 
government of Ireland, and if a proposal has to be made, that proposal 
can only be made effectively by the Government of the country ; and 
although the Government of the country have been rather silent upon 
this subject, and appear to be most disinclined to use any language that 
might put them for a moment in less easy relations with the party from 
over the Channel, to whom they owe so much in the transactions of the 
last Parliament, if they continue to be the Government of the country 
any rational man in Oj^position will require to hear what they have got 
to say upon the subject before making up his own mind. I therefore think 
that I have given tolerably good reasons why, with every courtesy to 
Mr. Parnell, it is impossible for me to accede to the kind invitation he 
has given me. 

"the backbone of the party." 

I have had to address a meeting in Edinburgh upon the subject 
of the disestablishment of your Church, which excites great interest 
in the country ; and as it was my duty on that occasion to recom- 
mend, so far as I might presume to recommend, and I do not overrate 
my authority on that matter or suppose I have little or any duty or 
right beyond that of saying what conscientiously appears to me to be for 
the interest of the party and country — in the exercise of that duty I had 
to make an announcement which no doubt was painful and disappointing 
to some of those not only favourable in principle to disestablishment but 
who likewise think the time has come for giving effect to that desire. Well, 
I am bound to acknowledge the kindness and patience and generosity 
with which that declaration of mine has been received. It was a conscien- 
tious declaration dictated to me by consideration of the whole case as it 
presented itself to my mind. It may seem strange to you that I should 
show a disinclination to admit into the plan of action for the coming 
Parliament other great subjects besides those I have already enumerated. 
I ventured to present to the country what may be termed a limited pro- 
gramme or scheme of action, and others have tried to make additions to 
it. Some people have said that I should put out reform of the House of 
Lords, the abolition of the House of Lord.^^, and put in disestablishment 



192 Sjoeeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P, 

of the Cliurcli. Pray, gentlemen, remember I am not now speaking on 
the merits of the question. I am speaking of the policy and the pro- 
priety of including the particular subjects in the programme which I 
have laid before the country. Nothing would be more easy for me than 
to court popular favour by presenting to you an enormous list of reforms. 
I have no doubt that there are many subjects calling for legislation. I 
have endeavoured upon a multitude of occasions to help the country to 
understand how Avofully our legislative business is in arrear, above all 
to make it understand how the present condition of the House of 
Commons and its rules renders it. essential, in order to make proper 
progress with legislation, that those rules should be changed, which of 
itself would amount to a great public measure. After sitting in twelve 
Parliaments a man begins to have, if he has any brains at all, the capa- 
city and faculty of knowing what a particular Parliament can do and is 
likely to do, and therefore, instead of adopting the more popular course 
of dealing with this, that, and the other, I have put together those sub- 
jects which appeared not to me only, but, so far as I could judge, to the 
best heads and the best minds throughout the party to have the strongest 
claims on public attention. I have limited myself to these subjects and 
I believe I was right in that limitation. At the same time I am aware 
that I make a heavy draft upon the patience of gentlemen whose hearts 
and souls are in the prosecution of certain other questions when I re- 
spectfully endeavour to lay before them the appeal that at this juncture 
the object of their desires is not in my judgment practicable, and more 
especially am I sensible of the responsibility of making that draft upon 
their patience when I remember what undoubtedly will be admitted on 
all hands — that those favourable to the disestablishment of the Church 
in Scotland not only constitute a very large portion of the Liberal party, 
but likewise are, as I may say, the backbone of the party, are men who 
have never deviated from the steadiness of their purpose, men with 
regard to whom you may say that you always know where they are, 
that you always know when a public case comes forward they will not 
be finding small reasons and petty excuses for not supporting it, but 
whenever they see the cause of right and justice they will go straight to 
the mark. Therefore, sir, I wish to render my respectful acknowledg- 
ment to those gentlemen for the kindness with which they have tolerated 
me in the expression of a conscientious opinion. 

SEVEEANCE OF THE QUESTIONS OF SCOTCH AND ENGLISH 
DISESTABLISHMENT. 

One more word I will say. I know very well they attach the utmost 
value, and in my opinion they are right to attach the utmost value, to a 
complete severance between the two questions of Disestablishment in 
Scotland and Disestablishment in England. But, gentlemen, that 
severance is a principle to which I for one am pledged. I am pledged 
to maintain and promote it to the best of my ability. So is Lord 
Hartington, and so I think are those gentlemen who have taken an 
active part in advising on the concerns of the Liberal party. It is not 
altogether a matter of course that we shall succeed in it, and I venture 



The Tivo Parties. 193 



to assure you that if on this occasion the Liberal party in Scotland had 
made the sole question of Disestablishment the test of supporting or 
opposing candidates the effect would have been this — the same thing 
would have been done in England. On the other side, the supporters of 
the Church Establishment in England, who are exceedingly numerous 
and powerful both in the Liberal party and the Conservative party, 
never would have listened to this proposal to keep the questions separate. 
They would have made the Scotch question, as the English question, 
their question, and in my opinion the people of Scotland would have 
suffered severely from that intermixture of English questions with theirs, 
and from the risk, the serious risk, the almost certainty, that the balance 
of English opinion would have governed ultimately the question in 
Scotland. I have laboured and shall labour to keep these questions 
apart, and I believe the advice which I have ventured to give on the 
present occasion, however unpalatable it may be to many, is the most 
salutary and unfailing for the purpose of preserving that severance 
between the two questions which I hope and believe almost every Scotch- 
man desires to maintain. 



TACTICS OF THE CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION. 

Since I came to Scotland I have said nothing upon the subject of the 
present Government, and I must say something in respect to them, and 
with|regard to them I shall speak plainly, but at the same time I hope 
not under the influence of any blind party spirit, and certainly not with 
a desire to perpetrate any conscious injustice. There are two things to 
be considered ; one is the conduct of this Government, and the other is 
the treatment which this Government is to receive. What I am dis- 
posed to wish, if I were to sum it all up in one single sentence, would 
be this. I should wish that their conduct should be as like ours as it 
was possible, and I should wish that the treatment which they receive 
may be as unlike as possible the treatment we received. In regard to 
that treatment I speak principally of the House of Commons ; and I 
speak principally of the foreign policy of the country with regard to 
what I must observe — that nothing could be more injurious to Imperial 
interests than the incessant questioning, than the suggestions of mis- 
chievous character put from day to day, without number and without 
limit, in the shape of questions on matters of the utmost delicacy and 
difficulty, and weakening to the uttermost the influence of those who 
represent the interests of the country in the councils of Europe. Nothing 
could be more injurious and nothing could be more unjustifiable, because 
these were not questions put and difficulties created in order to give 
satisfaction to some great and sacred internal conviction. They were 
fighting for no principle against us ; they had been only put from a 
disposition to do mischief to their political opponents, with a culpable 
indifference whether, in the attempt to annoy their political ojDiDonents, 
they were or were not wounding the vital interests of the country. I 
have done with that, but I will point, however, to some matters I have 
stated, connected with the conduct of the present Government. I by no 
means have to make it a subject of universal complaint. 

H 



194 Speeches of Right Hon. William Etvart Gladstone^ M.P. 



THE SOUDAN. 

The most dangerous of all matters tliat we have had to deal with in 
the course of the last few years has been the question of the Soudan. It 
has cost this country some blood and much treasure, and I have admitted 
with regret that I could not say we in every instance and every step of 
our difficult path arrived at a right judgment. I think in some points 
not immaterial with respect to the Soudan it is clear that we fell into 
error. What I have said is this — that there was not an error that ,we 
have committed that was not fostered by the party opposite, and that 
the complaint against us amounts simply to this— that we did not com- 
mit more errors and greater. There may be some who think that that 
is a sweeping accusation. Let me illustrate it by a particular point. 
The question was immediately brought up on our quitting office whether 
it was desirable or not to continue the evacuation of the Soudan. We 
held that it was, that no good was to be done, and that great mischief 
was to be done, by organizing efforts for the purpose of the conquest of 
that country or for the purpose of establishing a government according 
to our ideas in that country. That is our opinion ; we place it before 
you for your judgment. What did the incoming Government say? The 
incoming Government said that that opinion was a great mistake, that 
we ought to have continued military operations in the Soudan, that we 
ought to have remained there until we had established by military force 
institutions for the government of that savage country. But it was 
added that our policy, our acts, had gone too far and could not be 
recalled, consequently that evacuation was to be continued, and we 
were to close our accounts with the Soudan, I lay that before you, 
because the statement is a fact which is perfectly unquestionable — ■ 
namely, that we in principle contended for leaving the Soudan ; that 
our opponents contended in princijole against it and said we should con- 
tinue there, but it was too late to do it. That will enable you to judge 
whether I am unreasonable when I say that the complaint of our oppo- 
nents against us was not against the errors which we committed but 
because we did not commit more and greater errors, and because, when 
the errors became palpable, we did not persevere and push them to 
extremities. Do you think it would have been wise for you to have 
continued military operations, which were never intended for the con- 
quest of the Soudan, for this wild purpose, and in defiance of climate, 
circumstances, and political relations — for this wild purpose of establish- 
ing institutions there by force over the head and ears of the people ? If 
you think that was wise, then condemn us, and give your support to 
those who are now in power ; but, if the reverse, then I think you will 
understand a little from what I have now said what I mean when I say 
that such errors as we have committed in regard to the Soudan were 
embraced and would have been exaggerated by the policy of the opposite 
party. 



The Two Parties. 195 



THE DUTY OF AN OPPOSITION. 

Another important question is with regard to the frontier of Afghan- 
istan. We were called upon to consider, on the part of the Ameer of 
Afghanistan, the particulars of his frontier towards the territory which 
Eussia had immediately become possessed of, and certain measures were 
adopted in full concurrence with the Ameer of Afghanistan. We adopted 
lines which We-thought just and conscientious. We went out of office, 
a new Government came in, and with great satisfaction I may say that 
the new Government has adhered: — we are not in possession of official 
information, but I believe the whole world knows enough to be aware 
that the new Government has adhered —upon that question to the lines 
>ve laid down, and I am also happy to understand that proceedings are 
going forward and are expected to reach a' satisfactory termination. 
Therefore, on that matter I delight to give credit. I am not a perfectly 
impartial judge ; of course, the credit I gi^e to them is that of agreeing 
with us. I am very glad to give it, but there are some among them 
that do not consider that a great credit. I hope you estimate it a little 
more favourably. I must observe, however, that I distinguish between 
the two questions of conduct and treatment, and whereas in the conduct 
there is nothing to find fault with since the new Government came into 
office, on the other hand, the treatment has certainly been very different. 
I will deal with one point. When we were in office and were dealing 
■ in concert with the Ameer we had offered certain terms to Bussia, and 
we meant to adhere to them, but the Opposition, especially by the mouth 
of one of its most favoured members, noAv Secretary of State for India, 
Lord Randolph Churchill immediately declared that it had heard with pain 
and shame the declarations made by the Prime Minister, which showed 
how the interests and honour of the country had been trampled underfoot. 
That was the sort of assistance v/e need to get in v/orking these ques- 
tions. When the new Government came in, when they examined the 
matter, when they saw that in point of justice and policy there was no 
choice — I take no particular credit for what we did ; there was no choice 
in point of justice and policy, there was no other alternative for honest, 
reasonable, enlightened men — when they came in and followed our 
course we offered them the very best support in our power. We assured 
them that in prosecuting that policy, without at all attempting to tie 
their hands as to details and particulars in the j)rosecution of that 
policy, they should have all the assistance we could give just as if we 
ourselves had continued in power and had been looking for the assist- 
ance of our friends. I hope we shall continue on that footing, I can 
only say that I have the deepest sense of the responsibility and guilt of 
interfering with Ministers concerned in carrying on the foreign affairs 
of the country except with clear and full knowledge and in deference to 
strong, conscientious convictions. Upon these grounds it may be a 
duty to interfere, as Lord Chatham interfered at the time of the 
American war, as Mr. Fox interfered at the time of the Revolutionary 
war — and what would he not have saved this country had his voice 
swayed their counsels ! But, as a rule, in the absence of better know- 

h2 



196 Speeches of Right Hon. William JEwart Gladstone, M.P. 

ledge, in the a"bsence of definite convictions, in the absence of better 
counsels, it is onr duty not to weaken the hands of the representatives 
of our country. I will say this also with respect to Afghanistan. You 
recollect the condition in which Afghanistan was at the time when we 
came into power. Afghanistan w^as broken to pieces, the gray hairs of 
an old sovereign had just been brought down with sorrow to the grave, 
its independence was destroyed, it was kept down by British arms. I 
ask you how we should have looked Eussia in the face when she came 
to make her claims. She would have found Afghanistan full of friends 
and allies ready to join her in opjDosition, and the invader she would 
have recognised as the liberator of the country. Instead of that, opposed 
and censured by the Tory Opposition, we brought peace into Afghan- 
istan. We witnessed with satisfaction the establishment of a competent, 
and I believe experience has shown an honest ruler, the present Ameer 
Abdurrahman. We gave peace and independence back to the country. 
We withdrew our army, the 60,000 men in Afghanistan and on the 
frontier were reduced by 40,000 men, and 20,000 men did the work so 
far as the defence of India was concerned, and did it better. I tremble 
to think of the position in which we should have stood if Russia had 
had Afghanistan for her friend and if we had been there in the condi- 
tion of persons exercising a foreign domination without cause or warrant 
in defiance of the sentiment of the country. 

"a deplorable spectacle." 

Another question I will touch on — and again, though at present 
imperfectly informed, I rejoice to say that I have no fault to find with 
the policy which the Government are pursuing — and that is the extra- 
ordinary controversy which has arisen, now unfortunately provoked and 
inflamed into acts of positive war, in the Balkan peninsula. I think, so 
far as I know what is going on, that Lord Salisbury deserves credit for ■ 
the course which he has taken in regard to the recent transactions in 
that peninsula. When the two portions of Bulgaria which were united 
by the Treaty of San Stefano and disjoined by the Treaty of Berlin again 
united themselves by a popular movement, that self-love of which I 
suppose most of us are conscious and by which all of us are on some 
occasions swayed, might have prompted Lord Salisbury to take a strong 
and indignant position against those who attempted to change the 
Treaty of Berlin. On tlie contrary, he appears to have taken a prudent 
and practical view of the case, and .to have been disposed to respect the 
desire of the Bulgarian peoples north and south of the Balkans to form 
one political community. Now war has been created, war has been 
begun, not by the interference of the Sultan or the Turkish Govern- 
ment, who I think deserve on this occasion the credit of having some 
prudence and moderation ; not by the interference of the Great Powers, 
against whom, at any rate, no charge can be made ; least of all through 
the action of the English Government, who appear to have been desirous 
to give fair attention to the claims of popular liberty in that peninsula ; 
but through the claims set up by the people of Servia and the people of 
Greece. The people of Greece have happily confined themselves to a 



The Tivo Parties. 197 



remonstrance or action within their own border, but Servia has made 
war on the people of Bulgaria. In my opinion that war is a deplorable 
spectacle. I have to say that the Servians owed their liberty in 1878 or 
1877 — I forget which it was, in 1877 I think — to the intervention of the 
European Powers, who would not allow the Sultan of Turkey to re- 
establish dominion over them. I think to see these territories incurring 
the risk and responsibility of carrying bloodshed into the territory of 
other people, other populations, to whom they were united by the 
recollection of centuries of common suffering and degradation — to see 
this war so provoked and so carried on is one of the most mournful 
spectacles which ever met my eyes. I will not undertake to tell you 
what ought to be done in this difficult circumstance. All that I will say 
is, as far as I am able to judge, the Government of the day, with Lord 
Salisbury at its head, and Lord Salisbury holding the seals of the 
Foreign Department, have been regulating their proceedings by sound 
principles of which no Englishman need be ashamed. And so long as 
they continue to direct themselves on that question upon those jirin- 
ciples, as far as I am concerned, and I am sure I can answer for those 
who have been my colleagues, they will receive our best support. 

THE ATTACK ON EARL SPENCER. 

I trust you will see that I do not wish to proceed with rpo-ard 
to the Government in a spirit of indiscriminate and sweepino- con- 
demnation ; nor is it necessary. But I come to matters at home 
upon which I cannot speak in terms of so much favour. Some 
bills were passed by the Government in conjunction with the 
Liberal leaders for which I think they deserve credit. But there 
are two questions on which I think their proceedings are open to 
serious exception. In the first place, I think no graver error was ever 
committed by a Government, and I am bound to say that Lord Salisbury 
took an early opportunity of disclaiming, so far as he could with decencv, 
the proceedings of his colleagues in the House of Commons — no graver 
error ever Avas committed than when two members of the Cabinet in 
particular, perhaps the two most important members of it in the House 
of Commons, took the opportunity of a discussion with regard to the 
administration of justice in Ireland to condemn largely the conduct and 
administration of Lord Spencer. You • know how we stand in this 
country. We have sharp party differences, but those party differences 
in general touch matters which are not elementary and fundamental in 
government. These are certain subjects upon which all parties and all 
Governments are supposed to pull together, and among these are questions 
connected with the administration of justice. I can only say that I am 
aware of no instance in which jDarty distinctions have been made to sway 
the conduct of political leaders in such a way as to lead them to condemn 
the conduct that they condemned in Lord Spencer. Lord Spencer is a 
man who is well known as of the very highest character, of great expe- 
rience in Ireland, and of marked ability, and he has been labourino- to 
the best of his ability— not infallibly, but to the best of his ability— for 
the good administration of justice in Ireland. I lament I cannot but 



198 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

gravely condemn the language which was nsed towards him, not only by 
the noble lord to whom I have referred, but by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach 
as leader of the House of Commons. I do not wish to excite feeling, 
especially in regard to any Irish matter ; therefore I pass from this 
subject. I wish to make this protest on behalf more of elementary 
principles of government and public order than on behalf of Lord 
Spencer, whose character and position are such that he needs no vindi- 
cation, and nothing can injure him in the estimation of his countrymen.' 

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE, 

But there is another subject I wish to dwell u.pon, because it is pro- 
spective. I cannot but disapprove and lament the appointment of a 
Koyal Commission to inquire into the distress of the country. There is 
no more plausible proceeding than, when there is difficulty, to appoint a 
Koyal Commission to make an inquiry. It takes it off the shoulders 
of the Executive Government, it takes it off the shoulders of those 
who are responsible, and places it upon the shoulders of those men who 
are not responsible at all. I have no doubt the members of the Eoyal 
Commission will do their best, but you have no hold upon them, and 
whatever they rejport will be made use of to diminish the responsibility 
of Ministers, lo whom you ought to look, and who, if no available reme- 
dies are at hand, ought to have the courage to say so. Do not suppose 
that I am here to question the fact that distress has prevailed in the 
country ; but this I must say that those who are as old as I am will be 
able to make useful and fruitful comparisons between the distress of the 
last fevr years and the distress that I recollect in my youth, the cases of 
distress snd the period of distress that occurred between the year 1815 
and the passing of the Reform Bill. These were periods indeed severe. 
The characteristic of the present distress has been this, that as regards 
capital there has been a great diminution of the profits, a good deal of 
stagnation, and a very large amount of suffering in certain branches of 
industry, such as agriculture and the coal industry ; but it has been 
attended with this mitigating circumstance, that there has not been 
general and severe distress among the working population of the 
country. No doubt in the coal trade and in the ship]3ing trade — per- 
haps these are the most remarkable interests— there has been a diminu- 
tion of employment, and with that diminution of employment consider- 
able distress, which I deeply lament-; but you must regard this fact — 
that most of the working population of the country have during the last 
two or three years been enjoying the benefit of access to articles of food 
and articles of clothing upon better terms than they ever knew before. 
There are a great nuniber of people in whose eyes it appears that if ca]3i- 
talists are not quite so well off as they were the question of the condition 
of the working classes is secondary. I exactly reverse these two posi- 
tions. I say that if the mass of the people, who are really dependent on 
their daily labour, are relatively not illoft' in the greater portion of our 
iDranches of industry, it is a matter for great regret, but still it is a 
secondary matter, to know that the accumulation of capital is not going 
on quite as rapidly as it did. Then, gentlemen, the question arises are 



The Tim Parties. 199 



there remedies for these distresses ? I can only say that those who are 
promoters of the Royal Commission have never suggested any remedies 
at all, or the remedies they suggested are a great deal worse than the 
disease. What has been said ? We are told — I did not hear it, but we 
are told through the usual channels — that Lord John Manners, of whom 
I speak with great respect for his highly amiable personal character, and 
likewise v/ith an acknowledgment of his high qualities for debate — -Lord 
John Manners has stated that if the Eoyal Commission recommend it he 
is ready to impose a duty upon foreign manufactures ; and Lord Salis- 
bury, it appears, has likewise stated that the duty upon foreign manu- 
factures would be the remedy for the distress. 

" YOUR OLD FRIEND THE CORN TAX. " 

Well, no great branch of industry has felt the distress so severely as 
the farming and agricultural industry, and I want to know what their 
condition is to be when, though they are suffering extremely from a 
violent fall in prices, and though they have always been told, from the 
time when I was a baby, that the Tory party were their true friends, 
these true friends do not seem — at least Lord John Manners and Lord 
Salisbury do not seem — to have any better remedy to propose for reliev- 
ing the farmer than a tax upon foreign manufactures. So that the sole 
consolation the farmer is to have is that, if he uses many articles of 
manufacture from abroad, he will have to pay higher for them than he 
used to do. But there is a snake in the grass. This taxation upon 
foreign manufacture has behind it something still more serious and the 
revival of what as yet no one has had the courage to name, but if devices 
like this Commission get countenance you will hear of it soon enough, 
and that is your old friend— a tax upon corn. There is an important 
gentleman in the j^reseht Government. He is not in the Cabinet, but 
he holds the high office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster — I mean 
Mr. Chaplin — who has distinctly avowed the doctrine that there ought 
to be, as I understand, and 1 think I have heard it with my own ears — ■ 
distinctly avowed there ought to be a tax upon foreign corn. It is 
melancholy as well as revolting that at this time of day we should be 
discussing such topics or have any occasion to refer to them. For 
twenty-five years of my life the whole country was fighting this subject 
of protection against tree trade. If you examine the years between 
1837-8 and 1861-2 you will find that almost the entire work of legis- 
lation—almost everything connected with popular and national progress 
—was arrested in order that we might solve the great problem, the great 
cohtrovesrsy raised between free and limited trade. This country is 
slow in its processes of legislation, yet though we are slow we are sure, 
and when we have made a great step we do not go back upon it. Is if 
not to be considered as serious that at this day any Liberal should be 
seduced away from his colours to support this piece of quackery that is 
called a Royal Commission, without plan, without purpose, without 
compass, and without guidance, with no definite creed or object, only 
with the latent purpose in the minds of some who did not like to speak 
it out that the system of free commerce was again to be set aside and a 



200 Speeclies of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

system of restricted and bound-up commerce brought again on the 
statute-book of this country ? 

A FISHING ENQUIRY. 

I believe I speak here chiefly in the centre of a mining in- 
dustry. You would begin by having a tax upon any manufactured 
article that you should want, and you would go on with having 
to pay a higher price for your bread. These are woeful delusions, 
and I am certain they will not gull the men of this country. I do 
not believe that in this crowded assembly there are probably ten 
men or five men or perhaps not one man capable of being taken in by 
such proceedings as these. If there had been a national aim and object, 
if there had been something to point to some particular law which it 
was thought bore hardly on any industry, it would have been quite right 
to examine whether that was so, or whether it was not. But this is an 
inquiry at large. It is what is called in the familiar language of the 
lobbies of Parliament a fishing inquiry. They go and fish for something 
to say about the distress, but you cannot get your fish unless there are 
fish to be got, and they do not know where the fish are, or whether they 
will catch any fish at all. But then they know that it is a plausible and 
well- sounding scheme for the weak-minded portion of the community 
who say — " What a benevolent Government you have got. The moment 
that they come into oflice, or at any rate, before they have been there a few 
weeks and have begun to feel in the least degree warm in the seats they 
occupy, they launch this Commission upon the world to find out the 
cause of distress." Those who are the strongest supporters of this know 
that ever since free trade was established, and I take the year 1846 as 
the greatest and most marked of all triumphs that were gained in that 
cause — ever since the year 1846 the wealth of the country has advanced 
with unexampled rapidity. The condition of the labouring man — God 
knows how I hope it may be further improved — has enormously im- 
proved as compared with what it was anterior to that epoch. 

AN IMPOSTURE DOOMED TO BE SHORT-LIVED. 

The trade of the country which had been nearly stationary from the 
beginning of the century till about the year 1842, when the work of 
reform began in earnest, had increased in a degree unexampled in the 
history of the world. Periods of distress formerly had been frequent 
and most severe — aye, so severe as to touch life. Since that time, with 
the single exception of the cotton famine — borne so nobly in Lancashire, 
and d'ze wholly to a special cause that was beyond human agency to deal 
with since that time periods of severe and great distress in the trade of 
the country have until the last few years been almost absolutely 
unknown. For nearly forty years — for between thirty and forty years 
we went on without those periods since the beneficent, and, I will say, 
blessed introduction of free trade. The best consolation I have to give 
you is this — I am fighting with an imposture which is doomed to be 
very short-lived. It cannot last long. Perhai)s the Koyal Commission 



The Tioo Parties. 201 



will look first at the most flattering portions of the subject, whatever 
they may be, and produce an early report as a sample of what they are 
hereafter to do. I know not whether they will or not, but I feel 
certain that before you are much older the whole of these delusive ideas 
will be swept away. That is, the principle of free commerce, for which 
Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright gave the whole purpose of their lives and of 
their distinguished power, for which Sir Robert Peel was expelled from 
the Tory party, because he would not prefer the interests of that party, 
or of the class to which he belonged, to the interests of his country, and 
to the welfare of the mass of the people — that system of free commerce 
is too deeply rooted, too well tested, too thoroughly approved by 
X^ractical results, to be overturned by any political device, or any 
momentary scheme intended to mitigate the little difficulties of an 
election. It cannot be done ; you may as well attempt to root the 
Pentlands from their base and tumble them into the Firth of Forth, as 
to induce Englishmen and Scotchmen and Irishmen to go back — at any 
rate, I can speak confidently for Englishmen and Scotchmen, and 
express my hope for our friends in Ireland also — as to induce the 
people of England, Scotland, and Ireland to go back into the darkness 
from which they suffered so long, and from which they eftected their 
escape with such tremendous effort, and at the expense of a quarter of a 
century. 

LIBERAL WORK IN THE PAST. 

Before I close, does any one ask, " You have said some good of the 
Government, and you have said some tilings that are not good, why, 
after all, do you not let them remain where they are? " I will let them 
remain where they are as long as the majority of the electors consider 
they ought to remain. I think the majority of electors ought to con- 
sider that it Avould be better that they should not remain where they 
are ; but why do I hold that the majority of the electors ought to be of 
that opinion ? It is sometimes said this is all a struggle for party. I 
read a poem the other day in the newspapers, beginning — 

" Lies upon this side and lies upon that side," 

which seems to imply that all those who are engaged in politics are, 
after all, a very dubious class of individuals, and that the whole thing 
was no more than a personal struggle. If it is a personal struggle, it 
certainly is a very lamentable business. I do not think it is a personal 
struggle. Party is an instrument, and an instrument is a thing 
ordained for a certain end. It is like a tool that a man uses in the mine, 
or the carpenter in the workshop. It is of no use in itself, but it is of 
use in the hands of those who use it. You have got before you two 
great instruments— the Tory instrument, and the Liberal instrument. 
Both of these purport and profess to be instruments for attaining and 
working out the public good. Have they done it '] What is the public 
good ? Where are you to look for it \ Do not look for it so much in 
promises and anticipations ; do not look for it so much in the mere 
froth of light phrases, and of sanguine minds. Look for it in the 
experience of the past. Look for it in the history of the country. Time 



202 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone.^ M.P. 

■would fail me to tell — it is impossible for me to tell with accuracy, such, 
ie their fulness, the changes which you have seen Avithin the last fifty 
years. Are these changes good ? Have they done good in the main '? 
Aye, have they almost universally been good, or have they not ? Is it 
your outspoken answer that they have been beneficial, that it has been 
a great period, not a nominal, but a real progress of real public advan- 
tage ? We have seen slavery abolished, we have seen trade liberated, 
we have seen the circulation through the Press of intelligence, which 
was formerly laden Vv'ith taxes and restrictions of every kind — we have 
seen it set entirely free, we have seen the Universities opened, we have 
seen the suffrage extended, v*^e have seen the voter protected in the 
independent exercise of his vote ; we have seen the Church-rate — a 
question of great interest in England — abolished. Bu.t memory will 
not serve me, and I should detain you too long. Memory will not 
serve me to recall those great and beneficial changes of which I have 
just given a sample. By whom have these changes been wrought ? 
They have been wrought by the Liberal party of the country. 

TORY-LIBERALISM. 

It may be said there are exceptions. What are these exceptions, and 
what is their peculiar character I In 1867, I admit, the name of house- 
hold suftrage was first pronounced by a Tory Government. And what 
was the Bill introduced by that Tory Government 1 I assure you that it 
would be difficult to make it understood in Scotland, because in Scot- 
land you have nothing, I believe, analogous to the system of what is 
called compound householders — at any rate, nothing that prevails so 
widely as in England. That Bill gave a vote only to such persons as 
personally paid their own rates, but there were only a few places in 
large towns in England where people did pay their own rates. But of 
all the Reform Bills introduced by Government into Parliament, that 
Household Suffrage Bill, as it first appeared, was the narrowest and 
feeblest. There was a magic in the name, the name worked like a 
charm. The Liberal party went to work upon the Bill ; they trans- 
formed the Bill by the amendments which they introduced into it ; they 
made a mock household suffrage into a real household suftrage. In 1829 
a Tory Government headed by enlightened men of great power and 
great distinction, the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, emanci- 
pated the Roman Catholics. What happened ? The discontented mem- 
iDers of their party turned them out of office the next year. In 1846 Sir 
Eobert Peel, in like manner, carried the repeal of the Corn Laws, but 
what happened to him ? The discontented members of his party did 
not wait so long as they did in 1829, for they turned him out of office 
that very year. It is a fact that these changes have been carried by 
Tory Governments, such as those of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of 
Wellington, acting in the spirit of Liberals ; but those leaders were 
severely punished by the Tory party for the excellent spirit they had 
shown. As a rule it stands the unshaken assertion that the legislative 
work of the country for centuries has been done by the Liberal party. 
The Liberal party is composed of one set of individuals, and the other 



The Land — the People — Local Government, 203 

party of another set. I ask you to look at each party strictly as you 
look at a tool, and ask which has done the best work. If your verdict is 
for the Liberals, then commit the future care of the country to those 
whom in your judgment you think best. I believe you may safely trust 
those who have been brought up in Liberal principles for so many years, 
those who have laboured for you for so many years, as the Liberal party 
has laboured, to carry out good and enlightened measures for the benefit 
of the nation. They are not going to turn their back upon that benefi- 
cent course of proceeding, but in what will remain of life and ability 
they will persevere in the application of those principles which they 
received and were at once dictated by their consciences, and known by 
their understandings to be fraught with benefit to the people. 



THE LAND— THE PEOPLE— LOCAL 
GOVEPvNMENT. 

{AT BALKEITS, NOVEMBER 21, 1885.) 

For the last fortnight I have been among you in the character of 
your candidate ; I hope before we are a week older I shall bear the 
character of your representative. To you who wish to know the view 
that T take of my duties in that character — if you, gentlemen, are 
pleased to return me, and if I continue to enjoy the confidence of the 
Liberal party, and to be regarded as its leader — it will be my duty to 
put forward, to the best of my ability, the views of that party as a 
v/hole. 

NEITHER ADVANCED LIBERAL NOR MODERATE LIBERAL. 

I have never been what is called a Moderate Liberal, and I have 
never been what is called an Advanced Liberal ; I have always 
found the name of Liberal without any sort of epithet or appendage 
quite sufficient to describe whatever in me is worthy of descrip- 
tion. I shall adhere to that view of my position, and if I go to 
Parliament I go there to promote not what is partial, not what is sec- 
tional, but the general matured convictions of the whole Liberal party, 
with which it is my delight to be connected. Now, sir, I think, if we 
compare our position at this moment with that of the opposite party it 
is not unsatisfactory. This is not the first time, gentlemen, that the 
country has had a dissolution with which it has been favoured for the 
purpose of determining the title to confidence of a Tory Government. 



204 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 



Three times before tliis has it happened, and this is the fourth time that 
Parliament has been dissolved in order to say whether a Tory Adminis- 
tration should remain in power. It was so dissolved in 1852, in 1859, 
and in 1867. The response of the country to the question upon those 
three occasions was perfectly intelligible, and was absolutely concordant 
— it was in the negative, and it would be a strange thing, I think, if, 
especially after the great change that has taken place in the Franchise, 
the country were to deviate from the happy uniformity of practice to 
which I am persuaded that it will adhere as resolutely, and perhaps 
even more emphatically, than upon former occasions. Indeed, when I 
consider what it is for which our opponents are hoping, I cannot envy 
them. I have said everywhere that I trust you will return a Liberal 
party able to sway the destinies of the country in the coming Parlia- 
ment, because, especially taking into view those necessities that may 
arise in connection with the Government of the sister island, nothing, I 
think, could be more dangerous to the public weal than that they should 
be handled in a Parliament where there was no party strong enough to 
direct its action according to its judgment and conscience, without being 
liable to be seduced from the right path by the temptation which might 
be offered to it by the vote of the Irish members. But that, I under- 
stand, is the summit of the hopes of the Tory party in this election; not 
that they may obtain such a national verdict as will enable them, pos- 
sessing the confidence of Parliament as a whole, to direct their course, 
but that they may obtain such an amount of strength in a minority as, 
with the assistance of a large Irish contingent, may be made into a 
majority. Gentlemen, I must say — I am entitled, I think, to say — that 
is not a state of things which we could accept as a party. But I may go 
I'urther, and say it is not a state of things that would be safe or honour- 
able to the country. 

"the delusions op fair trade." 

Now, what are the weapons that are used against us upon this 
occasion ? One of them is that delusion of what is called Fair 
Trade. It is always a bad sign, gentlemen, when any body of men, or 
professors of any political creed, find it necessary to discover a new name 
under which to represent themselves. It shows that the old name is 
worn out, while the old purpose remains. The cloak of Protection is 
noAV by far too ragged. It is so full of holes, that it will not rest on 
any man's shoulders. But Fair Trade has been polished up to do duty 
in its stead ; and, gentlemen, I hope you may have had an opportunitj^ 
of refreshing your minds and memories by observing in the Scotsman of 
yesterday some most sound and excellent doctrines upon this subject, 
quoted from a pamphlet — a lecture delivered by Lord Iddesleigh when 
he was Sir Staftbrd Northcote — in which he manfully lifted the banner 
of Free Trade, perhaps rather late in the day. But still he lifted it. 
He said it must be resolutely upheld ; and, above all, he said, " Nothing 
can be so mischievous as the adoption of any measure which can lead 
any portion of the people to question and doubt whether there was or 
was not a firm intention to stand by the system of Free Trade." Gen- 



The Land — tlte People — Local Government. 205 

tlemen, that is a golden sentence. I know not liow to reconcile it witli 
tlie appointment of a commission which, if it has any snbstantive pur- 
pose at all in view, if it has anything like an intelligible sketch in view, 
has no other sketch to afford, nor other hope to its promotion, except 
that in some way or other that system of free commerce, which we 
adojDted after so much consideration, and after so long and obstinate a 
struggle, that system of free commerce may be once again undermined. 
It is a commission apparently appointed with this for its purpose — to do 
the very thing Sir Stafford Northcote said was the worst thing that 
could be done — to raise doubt, (question, and speculation in the minds 
of the portion of the community which is capable of being misled on 
the subject as to the resolute conduct of the people and the legislature to 
maintain freedom of trade. 



DANGEROUS MEN. 

Well, gentlemen, I will not trouble you now, having dealt with it on 
a former occasion ; I will not trouble jom upon the question of dises- 
tablishment, because I think you are all aware that whatever the wishes 
of any oue may be, one cannot always comply with those wislies ; but it 
will be partly my main purpose to show how full already, by anticipa- 
tion and proposal, are the hands of the coming Parliament. If you 
wish to get into a particular compartment of a railway train, there 
is one reason that is absolutely conclusive against it, and that is 
if the com]3artment is already as full as it can hold, and in my 
opinion — you will judge whether I am reasonable in holding that 
opinion— in my opinion it would be idle to think of adding other 
great subjects beside those that have been generally accepted by 
the Liberal j)arty to the programme of the coming Parliament. 

But, gentlemen, there is another weapon that is used against us. As 
it is generally felt, after all, that Liberalism is the strongest political 
creed in the country'", there is of course, and very naturally — I cannot 
much blame it — a desire to produce division among Liberals : and the 
way that is used is this— To persuade them that they have got among 
them very dangerous men indeed, men who go by the name of Radicals, 
Now, of these Radicals, and of the desire that exists in the minds of our 
Tory friends to divide the Liberal party by insinuating the idea of danger 
from these Radicals, I will say this, in the first place, that this plea, 
tliis topic, is a standing dish in the Tory banquet. As long as I have 
been alive it has been the practice to say, " The moderate Liberals are all 
very well, but there are extremely dangerous men among you, and you 
must get rid of those dangerous men ; '' and thereby they have the hope 
to frighten those among us who have the weakest nerves, and to draw 
them off into the Tory ranks. This game, gentlemen, has not been very 
prosperous and successful. At the same time, it may appear to promise 
something, and it is pursued at the present time with very great eager- 
ness. The fact is, gentlemen, it is a necessity of Toryism always to have 
some bugbear to x)resent to the people. Joseph Hume for a long time 
served this purpose for the Tories, and was exhibited to the people as 
the great bugbear. But x^eople never had a more faithful and honourable 



206 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

servant than Joseph Hume, although I won't say I share every opinion 
he may have entertained. He is a man whose memory we hold in 
honour, and whom the Liberal party could ill afford to lose. "Well, for 
a long time Mr. O'Connell was the great bugbear held up to the country. 
Then came Mr. Cobdeu and Mr. Bright, and for many years those two 
men — one of them too early if I may presume to say so, too early, at 
any rate, for our wishes, taken from us, and the other, still in a vigorous 
old age, among us — those two have earned a place in the hearts of 
Englishmen for years and generations yet to come. They were held up 
to the world as dangerous men, from whom the Constitution and the 
Throne required to be rescued. 

AND EVEN I ! - 

There was a time, I can assure you — perhaps it is rather egotistical to 
say so — but there was a period when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
about five and twenty years ago, in several years of that period I myself 
for a considerable time served the purpose of a bugbear, and was exhi- 
bited everywhere as a violent, dangerous man — so reckless and so 
wild that there was no saying what he would next propose. Of late I 
think Mr. Chamberlain has pretty well succeeded me. But, gentlemen, we 
must judge questions upon their own merits. I hear a great deal said 
about Kadicalism. Now, that Radicalism is too bold and too forward, 
and that many schemes of organic change are propounded which would 
lead to great division of opinion and difficult controversies. I am not 
going to raise a discussion on that point. I am too old to change that 
l/' frame of mind, that general frame of mind, with which I look upon 
political questions ; and it is not for me to say whether men's opinions 
are tending to be too advanced or not. I have known extremes in the 
direction of stagnation. It is possible that these may be extremes in the 
direction of precipitate movement, 

TORY DEMOCRACY. 

But two things I wish to say ; if there is any danger of that kind, any 
danger of tendency to extremes among those who are called Radicals, 
there are two causes which I should mention as eminently tending to pro- 
mote that state of things. One of them is the recent invention of what is 
termed Tory Democracy. What, gentlemen, is Tory Democracy ? It is 
an attempt very different, indeed, from that of Sir Robert Peel, who 
never affected to court mere prejudice of passion even in a people, but 
who was always desirous of finding a moderate course, and of adopting 
enlightened measures wherever he saw them to be without danger. No, 
gentlemen, this is an attempt to outbid Radicals in their own market by 
pushing popular opinions further than Radicals push them. And these 
gentlemen who have invented the idea of Tory Democracy have such 
confidence in their own invention that they think that is the way by 
which they will, as it were, get behind the Radical camp and attack 
them in front and rear, and draw over the people to themselves. Now, 
gentlemen, I will not speak of the question of principle, or ask what 



The Land — the People — Local Government. 207 

sorb of standard of political integrity and character you are to expect in 
connection with Tory Democracy, but I will say this, that Tory Demo- 
cracy, so far from being a means of adding real strength to Toryism, is a 
means of adding great strength to Radicalism, because those Tory Demo- 
crats ought to perceive that whenever they adopt a Radical proposition 
that point upon which they mean to take their stand for their own con- 
venience becomes a new point of departure for the Radicals, upon which 
they found fresh plans, fresh expectants, and fresh engagements. I give 
you, gentlemen, an instance. I daresay you all know that the Radicals 
are supposed to have a leaning very adverse to indirect taxation, that 
Tories, on the other hand, are great upholders of indirect taxation, for it 
is through indirect taxation that the masses of the people chiefly con- 
tribute to the expenditure of the State. Well, now, what happened this 
year ? We introduced a Budget, in which we combined together as 
honourably and fairly as we coald, direct and indirect taxation. The 
Tories made and carried a motion against our Budget, not because they 
objected to the indirect taxation — vv^hat they objected to was another 
element of the Budget, namely, an increased taxation through the 
medium of the death duties upon land. But, gentlemen, they had not 
the courage to found their motion of objection upon that portion of the 
Budget. They knew very well what would be the effect upon the 
country if they made such a motion, so they were obliged to attempt to 
wound our direct taxation upon the land through the medium of our 
indirect taxation. That was the great scheme in which they succeeded 
upon the 8th June. That is a true Radical or Tory Democratic scheme. 
But what has been the end of it % What was their Budget ? How did 
they modify the Budget — these great friends of indirect taxation '? They 
modified our Budget by throwing over the indirect taxation altogether. 
Was it possible to give a more conspicuous triumph to Radicalism than 
that that step should be taken by Toryism ? 

so MUCH THE WORSE FOR THE LORDS. 

There is another cause, which I am sorry to say tends to pro- 
voke extreme things, and that is a cause to which I shall advert 
very briefly, and with deep regret, viz., that there is a certain amount 
of disintegration going on amongst a portion of the Liberal party 
which has hitherto been found in the very highest stations of the 
country, and in the House of Lords. I am sorry to confess that the 
Liberal party in the House of Lords is weaker at this time than it was 
thirty, forty, or fifty years ago. It certainly has not been the fault of 
its leader, for if ever there was a, man calculated to make Liberalism 
acceptable in that assembly by his tact and judgment, that man is Lord 
Granville. Again, you know, gentlemen, what happened last year ; you 
know the great danger into which the House of Lords had brought itself 
by its most unwise rejection of the Franchise Bill. You know that we, 
the Liberal Government, exerted ourselves with all the energy in our 
power, to save the House of Lords from that perilous position. We did 
secure the enfranchisement of the people, and relieved the Houses of 
Parliament from the dilemma into which they had been most wantonly 



208 Speeches of Right lion. William Eivart Gladstone, M.P. 

and unnecessarily plunged. Not withstanding that, I regret to say that 
even this year has been marked by some further progress in a disinte- 
grating process by which one peer and then another peer drops off from 
the Liberal party and joins the ranks of its opponents. Gentlemen, 
this is deeply to be lamented. It does not matter to the Liberal party 
whether it is supported by a large number of peers or by a smaller 
number, but it has been an honourable and a most valuable character- 
istic of British history, that the people and the cause of the people have 
never been in a condition in which they did not find expositors of their 
creed and leaders of their movement among the highest families in the 
country. That has been one great reason why our political movement 
has exhibited a stability not very common in other countries, and it has 
been a great reason, also, why in this country the union of classes has 
been preserved in a remarkable degree. What I foresee is this, that 
should this dwindling of the Liberal party in the highest ranks proceed, 
it will make no sensible or appreciable difference in the strength of the 
House of Lords, and it may tend to accelerate the movement of ideas 
beyond its natural and legitimate order of advance. Therefore, I am of 
opinion that it is really not Liberalism, but it is in the first place a most 
new fangled and outlandish invention of Toryism called Tory demo- 
cracy, and it is in the second j)lace a certain want of political nerve among 
some portion of those who have heretofore constituted the Liberal party, 
that, so far as I know, may tend to give an impulsion to Radicalism and 
to extreme opinions, beyond that which for legitimate causes it ought to 
enjoy. 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, 

I have said — and I will x^roceed to redeem my pledge— I wish to 
show that, although the subjects may appear to be dry, yet those 
subjects we have before us for the coming Parliament are subjects 
of immense importance, and subjects that must of necessity make very 
large demands upon the time, upon the prudence, and upon the energy 
of those who are to constitute the Parliament. I take first the question 
of local government, and I will take it without including in it, for the 
present, the larger aspect of the subject which may possibly be raised in 
connection with the kingdom of Ireland, but I will look at it for Eng- 
land and for Scotland only. Now local government, gentlemen, is 
highly prized and valued in this country, and I would almost say that 
it can never be valued highly enough. I prize it, in the first place, 
because it brings home into almost every house in the country, in one 
shape or another, the ideas and the calls of public duty, and because 
through local government an immense number of individuals of almost 
all classes in the community are called on to step out of the narrow 
circle of merely selfish considerations, and embrace that noble idea of 
doing something for their fellow creatures, for their neighbours, for 
their parish, for their country at large, be it what it may, in one or 
other of all those local duties with which we are so familiar — to perform 
that duty, and even at the sacrifice of their own time. It is through 
these local government duties that the people of this country have 
acquired that remarkable self-governing capacity, and that j)ower of 



The Land — the People — Local Government. 209 

proceeding froni smaller tilings to greater things, from local interests- 
and concerns to imperial interests and concerns, and have shown them- 
selves fit— aye, and fit at short notice — to enter npon the duties of Par- 
liament and the duties of political office. The system of silent growtli 
of habit oi mind, and capacities of mind, which, fit them for the dis- 
charge of public affairs is everywhere maintained among us by local 
government, and it would be maintained of course far more perfectly if 
those popular principles of representation and control which, at present 
are only applied in part to local government were made to pervade it 
universally, f.nd to place it upon the foundations which alone we can 
recognise as thoroughly sound, legitimate, and effective. Further, local 
government, gentlemen, has the advantage of raising up bodies in every 
portion of the country, not municipal only, but rural ; and it is the 
rural districts that labour now under the greatest deficiencies in this 
imj)ortant respect. It has the advantage of raising up bodies who can 
do for the community, in a variety of ways, work that cannot otherwise 
be done to meet their wants and provide for their well-being. As you 
see from the happy action of the municipalities in the towns, they can 
provide for their well-being in many movements which would not other- 
wise become available. 



, SMALL HOLDINGS. 

Now lately it has been proposed, I think by Mr. Chamberlain, that 
local authorities should be entrusted with the power of taking, even 
compulsorily,iland from the landed proprietors for the purpose of placing 
it in the hancls of the labouring population. But, gentlemen, I cannot 
wonder that energetic, patriotic men, whether they be Radicals or whether 
they be Liberals, should at any rate have their minds turned in this 
direction. There can be no doubt that the severance of the people from 
the land to the extent to which it has been carried is a serious evil in 
this country. There is considerable difficulty about compulsory expro- 
priation. You may possibly recollect — I recollect very well — that when 
I had the honour of soliciting your suffrages in 1879-80 I said that the 
Legislature had an undoubted title to expropriate every landlord if it 
were required for the public good. That is a proposition, I think, quite 
luiquestionable. There are very many difficulties attending partial ex- 
propriation, and I will not say more upon the subject, as far as compid- 
sion is concerned, which ought to be carefully considered. In principle it 
is not unsound, because compulsory expropriation for an adequate purpose 
is the law and practice of the countr}^, of course — with proper comj)en- 
sation — but the application of the principle requires consideration in 
order to prevent failure and secure efficiency. Now, I wish to do this 
justice to a period of our history which I cannot call a good period. I 
mean the last years of the reign of George Ill.^years whicli were un- 
happily marked, I would now say branded, by the passing of unconsti- 
tutional and repressive laws. But in the year 1819, it is rather a curious 
circumstance that the Legislature of the day — and I have no doubt the 
Tory Government of the day — did acknowledge that to find land for the 
agricultural labourers to cultivate was a great public obj ect, and they passed 



210 SpeecJies of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.f. 

an Act, the 59th of George III., chapter 12, under which, in sections 12 
and 13, povfer was given to churchwardens, overseers, and parochial 
authorities to acquire land for the very purpose of letting it out upon 
terms that they might think equitable to the labourers and tie country. 
A great deal of that Act has since been repealed, but those sections, I 
believe, are still in force ; and I rejoice to think that this purpose of 
bringhig the masses of the rural population into nearer connection with 
the use of the land for their own interests, and not meraly for their 
Tv'ages, is a purpose that has ah^eady received this emphatic sanction, 
even in times that we consider to have been comparatively dark times, 
and under the auspices of a Parliament far more restricted in its ideas 
than tlie Parliament which is now, as I hope, to be charged witli the 
care of those interests. 

THE LIQUOR LAWS. 

That is a possible purpose to which local government may be applied, 
and very glad, indeed, will I be if it sliall be found practicable so to adjust 
the practical difficulties of the case as to found an efficient measure upon 
that basis. But I tell you more of what local government means. Local 
government, in my estimation, and so I have already explained it, means 
the reform of the liquor law. If I have not dwelt in detail upon tlie sub- 
ject, it is because I consider it as an essential and primary portion of the 
great subject of local government. It is through, and in connection with 
local government, as I hope, that it ought to be settled. And even tliat 
in itself, gentlemen, is a great and substantive purpose of legislation, 
which will mal^e no small demand upon the time and the thought of 
Parliament. 

GRANTS IN AID. 

I will deal with a subject which is, I do not know that it is more 
important, but it is at any rate more voluminous in its character, 
and it will enable you, as I know how well and clearly you will follow 
me, to see what a mass of practical work is enveloped in those small and 
short words and that single phrase of local government. There has been 
going on, gentlemen for many years past a system with which in Parlia- 
ment we are very familiar, but of which you perhaps have not heard so 
much as you ought to hear, and I trust you will hear, under the name of 
grants in aid. The general character and object of these grants may be 
described in a single sentence — they are grants which carry over to the 
Consolidated Fund — the general income of the country — the cost of 
purposes that have hitherto been met out of the produce of the rates on 
real property of the country. In my opinion it is impossible to devise 
a scheme more insane in principle or more objectionable in practice. 
It is objectionable in practice in the highest degree, because it tends so 
powerfully to relax all the principles of economy in local government ; 
for in many cases those grants in aid have been coupled with conditions 
imposing upon local authorities, as the means of getting the grant in aid, 
an expenditure larger than the local authorities have thought necessary. 
So that you may say in a few words that it is a system Avhicli confers a 



The Land — the People — Local Government. 21 1 

minimum of advantage to ratepayers at a maximum of cost to the general 
community. But there is another fault which I will presently exhibit 
to you of a much more serious character. Still, I will only say now 
that if you ask me whether I deny that the purposes of rates ought to be 
aided out of the general taxation of the country, I ans^ver I do not deny 
it subject to tliese two conditions — first of all, that the money which is 
so granted should be granted in such a way as not to interfere with 
economy in the expenditure of the ratepayers' funds ; and, secondly, 
and still the more that it ought to be granted in such a way as not to do 
gross injustice in the balance of taxation between property and labour. 
And the mode, gentlemen — I shall not enter into the details of it — 
but the mode of doing that is to hand over to the local authorities the 
proceeds of certain taxes judiciously selected for the purpose. 



HOW THE CONSERVATIVES ADJUST THE INCIDENCE OF LOCAL 
■ TAXATION. 

Now I want to show you what has been going on under the 
system of grants in aid. I read some time ago a speech of Lord 
George Hamilton, in which he entered upon this interesting ques- 
tion of increasing the number of landowners, and he said that the 
first thing to do in order to increase the number of landowners was 
what the Tory party had over and over again suggested, that was to 
adjust the incidence of local taxation. Yes, gentlemen, and I will show 
you in what way the Tory party has adjusted that. It has been by 
means of those transfers to the Consolidated Fund. Now, I do not 
den}^, and have often stated in the House of Commons, that the old law 
of the country, as known by you in Scotland under the name of Means 
and Substance, is the proper taxable subject, for local purposes, of per- 
sonal as well as real property. In England the law was the same, and 
it was only in the last thirty or forty years that stock-in-trade was in 
point of law exempted from liability to pay to poor-rate in England, and, 
therefore, the land, so to speak,. had a great deal to say for itself in this 
controversy with personal property. As far as rates were concerned, the 
land took pretty good care of itself in every particular. I am not 
dealing with those now, but so far as rates were concerned the land had 
a good deal to say, and a good claim to make upon personal property, 
which ought to be made contributory to local burdens. And how have 
they given efi*ect to the claim ? They have given effect to it by placing 
it upon a fund derived from personal as well as real property. It is 
placing it upon a fund a very large portion of which is derived from 
labour, so that where property in land had a claim on movable and 
personal property, instead of charging that claim upon movable and 
personal property, they never made an eff'ort to my knowledge, in that 
direction, but they have to a very large extent placed these local charges 
upon the Consolidated Fund, and thereby made the labour of the country 
contribute to what it never was intended to contribute to by law, and 
to what I do not hesitate to say it ought not to contribute. 



212 Speeches of Right Hon. William Eioart Gladstone, JSLP. 

LAY THE AXE TO THE EOOT OP THE MISCHIEF. 

I want to convey to you in a very few and very simple figures an idea of 
the injustice that has been done to the labour of the country by this 
method of proceeding. I will not give you exact figures, but I will give 
you figures which will be perfectly clear, and which you will perfectly 
comprehend. It is computed that labour contributes to rates at the 
proportion of one-fifth, and tliat property contributes to them in the 
proportion of four-fifths. It is also computed that labour contributes to 
the Consolidated Fund in the proportion of two-fifths, and property in 
the proportion of three-fifths. I believe myself that with these com- 
putations — at any rate in the computation as regards the Consolidated 
Fund — the contribution made by labour (chiefly, of course, through 
indirect taxation), is understated, and, therefore, that the result I shall 
show you is less than the trutli. Now, let me suppose that five millions 
of charge have been carried over from tlie rates to the Consolidated Fund 
— it does not matter whether it is the exact figure ; I want to show you 
what the practical effect of the ojoeration is — five millions of charge. 
Fix that in your mind. While that was the charge upon the rates, 
according to the figures I have given you, four millions of it were borne 
by property and one million by labour. It is carried over to the Con- 
solidated Fund, and tlie eftect of it is^that now three-fifths go on property 
and two-fiftlis to labour — 3,000,000 are borne by property, 2,000,0C0 by 
labour — so that, under the name and pretext of relieving the ratepayer, 
a million of taxation is annually carried over from the shoulders of 
property and laid upon the shoulders of labour. Now, gentlemen, my 
contention is that that is not an equitable — I might say not an honourable 
proceeding. It is not consistent with justice as between two difl'erent 
classes of the community ; and an essential part, in my opinion, of the 
work of the coming Parliament will be to lay the axe to the root of the 
mischief, and cut it away from the earth. 

THE LAND QUESTION. 

I think I hare said enough to show you, without entering upon 
full details, how much is involved in the proper and business-like 
handling of this great subject of local government ; but I will touch 
one other question, and one which is larger still — I mean the question 
of land. We have not in the last Parliament been altogether idle upon 
that subject ; I believe that we have tolerably redeemed all the pledges 
in respect of land, the substantial pledges which I gave you when I had 
the honour of addressing you six years ago. We have laboured upon 
the question of the relations between landlord and tenant. For the first 
time we have provided for the bulk of the tenants of this country — I do 
not mean Scotland only, but I mean England, also ; still more would it 
apply to Ireland — for the bulk of the tenants of this country we have 
provided both security, which they did not previously eujoy, and the 
means of recovering the unexhausted capital that they have laid out 
upon the land. I do not say that the work is perfect. It may be that 
the peculiar conditions of the law in Scotland under the system of 



The Land — the People — Local Government. 213 

liypothec li^ve created a state of things which has not yet been in all 
points fully considered. I will not enter into particulars upon that 
suljject, but I will say this, that speaking of the farmer generally in 
England, Scotland, and Ireland, his position has been enormously 
improved, and he has now come to own legal rights and to be possessed 
of remedies which formerly had no existence in law, and with respect to 
which he was entirely dependent upon the goodwill or bounty of his 
landlord. We did what we could for him in reference to ground game, 
and, so far as I know, speaking principally of England, where, I believe, 
that law has produced the most admirable eifects, we have, gentlemen, 
still remaining to consider one other difficult and urgent question in con- 
nection with the cultivation of the soil, and that is the question known 
to you, gentlemen, under the name of the Crofter question. That subject 
is a difficult one, but I will say of it, in the presence of my learned 
friend the Dean of Faculty, that if it be his fate to conduct it, I hoj)e he 
will conduct a settlement of that question which will dispose of the 
great social and economical difficulties with which it is now hampered 
and entangled. 

" MUST BE SWEPT AWAY." 

But there is a great work to be done with reference to the land laws, 
entirely apart from the question of the relation between the owner of 
the land and its cultivator. Of course, one portion of that work is 
known to you to be that while perfect liberty of bequest with regard to 
land, as with regard to other things, ought to be preserved, yet the cus- 
tom of primogeniture, which sets an extravagant and unsound example 
in cases of intestacy, that custom ought to be, and must be, swept away. 
There is a change, gentlemen, far more important than that, and that is 
to alter what is still known popularly by the name of the law of entail ; 
but 1 believe I should mure correctly describe it upon the whole — most 
intelligently describe it upon the whole — if I were to say it was to be 
the destruction of life interests in land. The consequence of these life 
interests has been manifest. I believe they have been bad economically ; 
I believe they have been bad in their social and domestic bearings uj)on 
the peace and welfare of families, because in the case of land they take 
out of the parent's hand the duty of providing for the child, and they 
teach the child to look to the law, and not to the parent, and also to 
regard its inheritance as not dependent upon his good conduct, but that 
which he is to enjoy, however opposite to good his conduct may be. 
Another evil consequence of these life estates in laiid has been the enor- 
mous complication of the law. In a very able speech, Mr. Willis, a dis- 
tinguished Queen's Counsel, endeavoured to show, and I think he did 
show, that it is idle to talk of free transfer of land, making it to easily 
pass from one to another, as long as life estates exist, as long as 
that complex sympathy of procedure which has been gradually 
built up in connection with life estates is permitted to remain. 
But we are agreed that what we want to get at is the absolute dealing 
with the transfer of land. We wish that the transfer should be as simple 
as the transfer of any other property ; and the doctrine of Mr. Willis is 



214 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

that in ancient times, and under the feudal system, in its parity, which 
we are too apt indiscriminately to condemn, that in ancient times was 
not only as simple, but was more simple than any other description of 
property. Then, gentlemen, there is the registration of land, so that 
everybody who has dealings with the owner of the land may know what 
is the real condition. That is a* thing that at present is not merely 
difficult, but is absolutely impossible. 

LAND MORTaAGES. 

Then there is the mortgage of land. I dare say when you want to 
borrow money on railway shares you can, as I believe, borrow that 
money as a general rule by executing a transfer of the shares, and that 
transfer of the shares is very properly subject to a duty of ten shillings per 
cent. ; but if you want to borrow money by mortgage you can do it by 
paying a duty of only two shillings and sixpence per cent. I believe, 
gentlemen, there never was a greater injury inflicted in the name and 
semblance of a boon than the imposing of the lower rate of duty on 
mortgaging. If you could stop the landlord from mortgaging his land 
you would do him a favour. There is nothing that so falsities his posi- 
tion ; there is nothing that so undermines his independence ; there is 
nothing that so places him in the face of the public as a great pretender 
of possessing influence and power, the true basis of which he does 
not really possess, as this facility of mortgage, which has led many 
men, perhaps most of all in Ireland, and likewise in England, and I 
am afraid also in Scotland, to mortgage themselves over their ears and 
over their head, and to be no longer more than the nominal proprie- 
tors of that land upon which they continue to exist, only for the purpose 
of preventing somebody else to exist who might possibly do some day. 
There is another point upon which I wish to say a few words to you in 
connection with the land, because I stupidly forgot it at the time when 
I was writing the address I laid before you. It is the question of the 
land in mortmain. Here I must ask you, as you have not in Scotland a 
great deal of land in mortmain, to extend your sympathetic sentiments 
to England, In England the quantity in mortmain is large indeed. It 
is adopted to a very large extent for the Church, and to a large extent for 
the colleges, and to a large extent also for hospitals and other charitable 
foundations ; in fact, there were millions upon millions. , I am not 
certain that I may not say that in England — though you have little of 
it here — there are scores of millions of landed property held in mortmain ; 
not held by the individual, but under the management of persons who 
have not a direct individual interest in it, and who, notwithstanding, 
exercise the whole power, influence, and responsibility connected with 



the management of land. 



MORTMAIN. 



This is not the time, in the present stagnant state of the land market, 
to contemplate great and rapid changes, but it is a time justly to consider 
the foundations of the policy ; and I do not hesitate to tell you that I 



The Land — the People — Local Government. 215 

believe tlie only sound policy for the Legislature to adopt would be to 
root up altogether the system of holding land in mortmain, and to have 
the land properly so called held by inclividuals with all the motives of 
legitimate self-interest and all its rewards brought to bear upon it, instead 
of placing it in the anomalous jDosition in Avhich it is now placed, under 
the management of corporate bodies. Of course, gentlemen, when I say 
that, you will understand I do not inean to imply that there ought not 
to he, bodies entitled to hold pieces of land for sites for churches, for 
chapels, for schools, and all these things, nor will I even go so far as to 
say whether it is necessary to bestow any censure at all upon the glebes 
of the Scottish established clergy, and which, as far as I have ever had 
the opportunity of knowing, have been very shrewdly, carefully, and, in 
'' recent times, successfully managed. I do not speak of that, bu.t I speak 
of the holding of masses of land under bodies not having that stimulus 
of personal self-interest to improve the land, because that personal self- 
interest does not mean merely that the owner of the land is to get 
out of it the greatest amount of benefit ; but it means that the land is also 
to be made to yield the greatest amount of benefit for the public at large. 
This is a subject of very great interest in connection with the question 
of introducing the labourer to a share in cultivation — possibly in the 
ownership of the land for his own benefit, because I pointed out to you 
that there is a certain amount of difficulty in authorising local authori- 
ties to go among a number of proprietors to select at their own option 
whom they shall expropriate ; but there is a great stalk of land which, 
when it is sold uncler public authority, it will be in the power of the 
State to acquire in large portions, and in many parts of the country 
there will be a most valuable and unobjectionable opportunity for sell- 
ing land in such portions as will be valuable for the less wealthy classes 
of the population. I may mention that the experiment has been tried 
in Ireland ; it has been tried so far with perfect success ; it was tried 
Avhen the Irish Church was disestablished ; it has been tried again to 
some extent on the land ; but in the case where the Irish Church was 
disestablished, and the State became owner for the time of a great deal 
of the land, nothing could be better than the manner in which the 
subject was managed, and nothing more satisfactory than the result of 
the sales which were made to those who are now small proprietors in 
the sister isle. Well, there is only one other point, gentlemen, that I 
will mention to you in connection with land, and that is in one single 
sentence. It is, as I have told you, and as I have implied in what I 
have said to you, that taxation upon land ought to be fairly and equitably 
readjusted. The system of transferring local burdens to the Consolidated 
Fund under the name of redressing inequalities between real projDerty 
and personal property, has been the means of introducing a grosser and 
worse inequality as between property and labour, real property and 
labour. That inequality question must be thoroughly redressed, and 
the advantage that has been surreptitiously gained cannot be allowed 
to continue. Justice ought to be done to the labouring man in that 
adjustment, and he ought to be placed in a position which is agreeable 
both to the general principle of equity and to the ancient rules of thia 
country with regard to the lessening of local burdens. 



216 Speeches of Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, M.P. 

SUFFICIENT FOR THE DAY. 

I hope what I have said has really sufficed to show— not that I think 
you were likely to doubt it before — that there is plenty of work pro- 
vided for the coming Parliament ; that not a scanty, but a very copious 
bill of fare will be laid before it. Now, gentlemen, if that work is to 
be done, you will see plainly it is not of a description that appeals 
to the violent passions or cupidity of any class, it is directly and 
honestly aimed at the general benefit of the whole mass of the 
people, and is compatible with perfect justice to every class. Work 
such as that can only be done by a party powerful in Parliament, and 
for that reason it is, and not for the mere miserable objects of personal 
ambition, or political or party contention, for that reason it is that I 
ask you to make the Liberal party powerful in the Parliament that is 
to come. With your support I have no doubt that this work can be 
accomplished. It may be, probably it must be, that my own share in 
it cannot be a very great one ; it may be a very small one ; but, at any 
rate, I hope to have some concern in the inception of this work, 
and whatever contribution I may be able to make to it, I will make 
with an earnest j)^TLi'pose, and with my whole heart. But, gen- 
tlemen, though these are old countries, that have long had history, 
that have long had fame in the history of the world, though these 
are ancient thrones, now consolidated in one, that have subsisted 
for many and many centuries, yet there is no mark of decrepitude either 
upon the institutions or upon the character of the country. They are 
full of hope, and they are full of vigour, and they are full of capacity to 
confer even greater benefits than they have yet conferred upon the vast 
and increasing multitudes who live beneath their shade. All that is 
wanted, gentlemen, is that we, the men, shall do our duty to those insti- 
tutions, that we shall do what we can to improve them, and by im- 
proving, to preserve them. Hardly any higher honour can be conferred 
upon an individual tban to be selected from among his fellow-citizens to 
contribute his share towards guiding the destinies of a great and free 
nation ; hardly any duty can be more sacred and more solemn than that 
which you next week are about to perform, and which your fellow- 
countrymen throughout the land are about to perform within the few 
days that are before us — viz., the duty of selecting the persons Avho are 
to perform the work of the country, and upon whose good or bad j)er- 
formance of the work will it depend whether you lighten or whether 
you are to aggravate the burdens of life for yourselves and for your chil- 
dren through many generations yet to come. 



i| 



INDEX. 



Abstract resolutions, 185 

Ackers (Mr.), unfounded assertion of, 

175 (but see 189) 
Advowsons, confiscation of, in Scotland 

under the Church Patronage Act, 14 
Afghanistan, delimitation of frontier, 
147, 196 
invasion of, 74 

obligations to the Ameer, 147 
policy in, 73 

Eussian intrigues, 146, 152, 156, 195 
Africa, South, policy in, 75, 152 
Agrarian offences in Ireland, 49 
Agricultural Holdings Bill, an abortion, 

37 
Agricultural labom-er, enfranchisement 
of, 119 
land for, 210 
America. See United States. 
Ancient-right franchises, 121, 127 
Anti-Corn Law League, 43 
Arabi Pacha, 103, 153 
Army, abolition of purchase in, 81 ; of 

flogging, 175 
Arrears of legislation, 151, 160 
Attestation, forms of, 97 



Bakeb Pacha, on relief of Tokar, 113 

defeat of, 116 
Balkan peninsula, war in, 196 
Baring (Sir Evelyn), 113, 116 
Bartlett (Mr. Ashmead-), 139 
Basuto Avar, 75 

Beach (Sii- Michael Hicks), 198 
Beaconsfield (Earl of), on the Irish Land 

Act of 1870, p. 24 
first effect of his death, 27 

See Disraeli, Mr. 
Belgiuni. neutrality of, in 1870, p. 141 
Berlin, Treaty of, 72, 151 
Bloodguiltiness in South Africa, 75 
Boers, convention with, 76, 152 



Borough francliise, 121 

in Ireland, 124 

in Scotland, 124 
Bourke (Mr.), 108, 113 
Bradlaugh question, 86 
Bright (Mr.), 31, 46, 60, 201, 206 
Bugbears of the Tory party, 205 
Bullion, imports of, 64 
Butt (Mr. J.), on the Irish Land Act, 51 

Cairns (Lord), on the Land Bill of 

1870, p. 14 
Cairo, evacuation of, 153 
Cameron's (Dr.) resolution on Disesta- 
blishment, 185 
Censure, vote of, 99 
Citizens, capable, Avho are, 119 
Chamberlain (Mr.), 206, 209 
Chandos clause in the Beform Act of 

1832, p. 122 
Chaplin (Mr.), 14 

on the Irish Land Act, 24 
tax on foreign corn recommended 
by, 199 
Chauvinism, 33 

Cherif Pacha, resignation of, 112 
China war (1860), double vote of credit 

for, 140 
Church Patronage Act, confiscation of 

advowsons in Scotland under, 14 
Churchill (Lord R.), 139 

on the Afghan question, 195 
Church of England, disestablishment of, 
a test question, 177, 179, 183 
Lord Salisbury on, 177, 180 
a remote question, 180, 187 
vitality of, 161, 181 
Church of Ireland, disestablishment of, 
180 
sale of land under, 215 
Church of Scotland, disestablishment of, 
182, 184 
opinion in Scotland, 186 



218 



Index. 



Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, result of 

actions in, 19 
Civilization, resources of, 57 
Cobden (Mr.), 46, 60, 201, 206 
Collins (Mr. T.), amendment 'proposed 

by, on the Franchise Bill, 135 
Colonies, Tory and Liberal policy of 

governing, contrasted, 78 
Compensation, 16 
Compulsory purchase of land, Act Dassed 

in 1819 for, 209 
Confiscation, 13 

Conservative Opposition, tactics of, 193 
Conservative Party, the old, 30 
Consolidated Fund, charges on, 210, 215 
labour contribution to, 212 
property contribution to, 212 
Corn, duty on foreign, 44, 199 
Corn laws, repeal of, 170, 201, 202 

benefits conferred by, 16 
Cotton famine, Lancashire, 200 
County franchise, 122 
in Ireland, 124, 134 
in Scotland, 124 . . 
Courts under Irish Land Bill, 18 

Mr. Parnell's test cases, bb^ 51 
Cowen (Mr.), 174 
Credit, votes of, 136, 139, 141 
Crime in England and Wales, 63 
Crofter question, 213 
Cross (Sir E. A.), on the Oaths Bill, 

87,91 
Cyprus, occupation of, 140 



Dalkeith, speech at, Kov. 21, 1S85, 

213 
Dalrymple (Mr.), 167 
Death duties upon land, 207 
Depression of trade, 38, 198 
Derby (Lord), on the Irish Land Aet, 

48 
Devolution in the House of Commons, 

156 
Dillon (Mr. John\ 52 
Disestablishment, 161, 166, 174, 176 
a test question, 177, 179 
Church of England, a gigantic 
^ operation, 181, 187 
Dr. Cameron's resolution on, 185 
Discsiablishment of Irish Church, 168 
proposed in 1868, 27 
Scotch and English, seyerance of, 
192 
Disfranchisement on the Clyde, whole- 
sale, 120 
Disraeli (Mr.), debate raised by, in 
1870, on the critical state of affairs 
in Europe, 141 



Disraeli (Mr.), Household Suffrage Bill 
passed by, in 1867, 170, 175, 176 
See Beaconsfield, Eaiil of. 
Dual Control in Egypt, 75, 101, 153 
Dufferin_(Lord), 104 

opinion as to the restriction of the 
Soudan, 111 
Duffy (Sir C. G.), on the Irish Land Act, 

50 
Duncombe (Mr. A.), extraordinary state- 
ment of, 176 
D_) namite explosions, 54 



EcROYD (Mr.) on fair, trade, 41 
Edinburgh, speeches at : 

Nov. 9, 1885, p. 167 

Nov. 11, 1885, p. 174 
Education Act, Scotch, 162 

gratuitous, 161 
Egypt, dual control in, 75, 101, 153 

finances, 75 

Liberal policy in, 74, 101 

protectorate in, 106, 153 

reforms in, 105 
Elcho (Lord) on the Irish Land Act, 26 
Electoral catechism, 179 
Encumbered Estates Act, 15 
England, crime in, 63 

material and moral condition of, 
before and since, 1840, p. 62 

under protection, 61 
Entail, law of, 213 
Established Church, 161 
Excise duties, repeal of, 35 
Expenditure, public, 72, 79, 155 
Exports, American, 65, 66 

British and Irish, 39 
English, 66 
Expropriation, compulsory, 209 



Faggot votes, 126 
Fair rent, 20 

trade, 29, 42, 66, 204 
delusions of, 204 
Fancy franchises, 129 
Farmer, improvement in condition of, 

213 
Feudal system, land under the, 214 
Flogging in the army, abolition of, 175 
Forster (Mr. W. E), 28 

services rendered to Ireland, 57 
FowlerMr. W.), 138 
France, commercial treaty with, 58, 60 

protection in, 65 
Franihise BUI, aim of, 129 

ancient-right franchises, 121, 127 

appeal to reformers, 135 



Index. 



219 



Franchise Bill, 

borough franchise, 121 

capable citizens, who are, 119 

county franchise, 122 
in Ireland, 124, 134 
in Scotland, 124 

disfranchisement, wholesale, 120 

faggot votes, 126 

lodger franchise, 121, 123 
r never a complete. Bill, 128 

property franchise, 123, 125 
Lord Coke's dictum, 125 

redistribution, 130 

service franchise, 121 

tithe -rent charge, 126 
Franchise legislation in 1832, p. 132 
Free trade, effects on shipping, 69 

England under, 62 

England's share of, with the -world, 
66 

impregnable, 59 

Mr. Ecroyd on, 41 
Free trade and protection, 58 



Garfield (President), 42 
Germany, trade of, 66 
Gibson (Mr.), on the Irish Land Bill, 20 
Gladstone (Mr. Herbert), election of, for 

Leeds, 32 
Glebe land in Scotland, 215 
Gordon (General), a Christian hero, 114 
on the reconquest of the Soudan, 

109 
plan for evacuation of the Soudan, 

115 
relief of, 156 

suggested employment in the Sou- 
dan, 114 
trust reposed in, 115 
death, 143 
Gospel of plunder, 54 
Grants in aid, 36, 85 

insane in theory and objectionable 
in practice, 210 
Granville (Eari), 31, 141 

offers services of Gen. Gordon to the 
Egyptian Government, 114 
Gratuitous education, 161 
Great Britain, taxable revenue of, 85 
Griffith's valuation, 54 
Ground game, 213 



Hamilton (Lord G.), on the incidence 

of local taxation, 211 
Hartington (Lord), 31 

on the Oaths Bill, 87 
Harvests, bad, 40 



Hay (Sir J.), amendment proposed by, 

on the Franchise Bill, 35 
Hewett (Admiral), 116, 117 
Hicks Pacha, defeat of, 111 
Holdings, small, 209 
Holland, external trade of, 6/ 
Home rulers, 53 
Household Franchise Bill for the United 

Kingdom, 127 
Household Suffrage Bill, 170, 175, 176 
House of Commons, atheists sitting in, 
86, 89, 98 - 

attack on Earl Spencer, 197 
Bradlaugh question a primarj' one, 

86 
Conservative Opposition, tactics of, 

193, 196 
devolution, 156 

necessity for a strong Liberal ma- 
jority, 173 
obstruction in, 1 56 
Opposition, conduct of, 166 
speeches in : 

May 16, 1881, p. 13 
April 6, 1883, p. 79 
April 26, 1883, p. 86 
Febnmry 12, 1884, p. 99 
February 28, 1884, p. 118 
April 27, 1885, p. 137 
suggested addition to the number 
of members, 135, 190 
House of Lords, changes in, 160 

Liberal party in, disintegration of, 

207 
perilous position of, after rejection 
of the Franchise Bill, 207 
Howley (Archbishop), 129 
Hume (Joseph), the great bugbear of 

the Tories, 205 ' ' 
Hjqiothec, law of, 213 



Iddesleigh (Earl of). See North- 
cote, Sir S. 
Imperial policy, an, 145 
Imports and exports, English, 64 
Income-tax a measure of progress, 63 

expectation of reducing, 81 
India, freedom of the press in, 152 

government of, 152 
Indian Protected States, 107 
Ionian Islands, protectorate over, 107 
Ireland, agrarian outrages, 49 

agricultiu-al savings, 49 

coercion in, 71 

demands of, 168, 190 

enlarged franchise, 124, 162, 168 

everything for, save separation, 169 

improvement in, 48 



220 



Index. 



Ireland, land claims in, 19 

landlords compensated at time of 

repeal of the Corn Laws, 16 
local self-goyernmeut, 163, 167, 169, 
173, 190 
suggestion from Mr. Parnell, 
190 
members for, divided into three 

parties, 168 
Nationalist vote, 171 
political education in, 52 
state of, 47 

the great scandal and evil of, 56 
Irish Land Bill (1870), 14, 24 
compensation under, 21 
"confiscation" a word applied to 

the leading enactments, 14 
property of landlords improved, 14 
Irish Land Bill (1881), second reading 
of, 13 
aim of, 17 
compensation, no claim allowed for, 

16 
"confiscation," 13 
Court, constitution of, 18 
landlord's interest secured by, 17, 

212 
Mr. Chaplin's connection with, 24 
mis-statements respecting, 26 
operation of, 49 
Irish patriotism, the five points of, 53 

Mr. Pamell's new creed, 56 
Irish vote, 171, 204 



Jews, admission of, to Parliament, 88, 
93 
Act for naturalizing, 91 
Jingoism, 33 



Kennedy (Dr.), letter from, in favour 

of the Oaths Bill, 90 
Khartoum, betrayal of, 143 
Khedive, abandonment of the Soudan 

approved by, 112 
Kitson (Mr.), 30 



Labour, taxes borne by, 212 

Lancashire cotton famine, 200 
Land, compulsory purchase of, 209 

death duties upon, 207 

entail, 213 

equitable taxation of, 215 

glebe, in Scotland, 215 

mortgage of, 214 

mortmain, 214 

primogeniture, 213 



Land, registration of, 214 
transfer, 213 

under the feudal system, 214 
Land Act of 1870, Lord Salisbury on, 1 1 
Land claims in Ireland, 19 
Land League, Irish, 50, 5o 
Land question, 34, 158, 212 
Landlords in Ireland, compensation 
given to in 1846, p. 16 
interest secured by Irish Land Bill, 

17 
property improved by Land Bill of 
1870, p. 14 
Landlord, the truly wise, 22 
Landloi'd and tenant, relations of, 212 
Lascelles' (Lord) statement at Kirkstall, 

39 
Lawson (Sir W.) on national expendi- 
ture, 79, 80 
Leases, current, 16 

Leeds, Mr. Herbert Gladstone elected 
for, 32 
population of, 71 
speeches at : 

Oct. 7 and 8, 1881, pp. 29, 47, 
58 
Legislation, arrears of, 151 

ulterior subjects of, 160 
Liberal party, condition and structure 
of, 159 
divisions in, in 1874, p. 31 
duty of union, 166 
future leaders of, 31 
in Scotland the backbone of the 

party, 191 
work in the past, 201 
Lord Derby one of the brightest or- 
naments of, 48 
majority a certainty in the new 

Parliament, 171 
opposed to imperialism, 77 
possible combinations, 171 
present position of, 207 
the only possible party to deal A\ith 
Ireland, 174 
Liberal programme, 184, 205 
Liberation Society, 178 
Liquor laws, reform of, 210 
Liverpool (Lord) and national expendi- 
ture, 83 
Lloyd (Mr. Clifford), 105 
Local government, 36, 157, 203, 208 

advantages of, 208 
Lodger franchise, 121, 123 

in Scotland and Ireland, 124 
Lowther (Mr. James), duty on corn 
recommended by, 44, 45 
misstatement as to York Eaihvay 
Station, 39 



Index, 



221 



Liinisden, Sir Peter, 148 
Lytton (Mr.), 22 



Macnaghten (Mr.) ou the Irish Land 

Bill, 16, 19 
Mahdi, the, 110, U3 
Malet (Sir E.), 104, 110 
Malt tax, repeal of, 35 

' Tory opinion of, 35 
Manners (Lord John), on protection, 

199 
Maynooth grant, 170 
Mayo (Lord), 73 

Means and Substance in Scotland, 211 
Midlothian addi-ess to electors, 150 

election of 1880, purity and efficiency 

of, 165 
fourth campaign, 167 
Toryism in, 32 

why Mr. Gladstone is member for, 
32 
Military establishments, 80, 138, 141 
Moderate Liberals, 205 
Moncrieff (Mr.), 105 
Montenegro, accession of territorj', 72, 

151 
Mortgage of land, 214 
Mortmain, land in, 214 



National Fair Trade League, 41 

abroad, 44 
National debt, reduction of, 84 
National expenditure, 72, 79, 155 

1840 and 1882-3 compared, 83 

proposals to reduce, 82, 83 
Nationalist vote, importance of, 171 
Navigation laws, 67 
Newdegate (Mr.), 89 

a higlily respectable prophet of evil, 
64 
North (Lord), Ministry of, 125 
Northcote (Sir Stafford) on free trade, 
44, 45, 60, 204 

on the Liberal policy in Egypt, 99, 
108 
Nubar Pacha, appointment of, 112, 115 



Oaths Bill, 86 

petitions against, 90 
Wesleyan Conference, 90 
Obstruction in the House of Commons, 

1-56 
O'Connell (Daniel), 206 



O'Connell (Daniel), characteristics of, 52 
Clare election, 88 
contrasted with Mr. Parnell, 54 
on the law of libel, 95 



Papek duty, repeal of the, 185 
Parliament, dissolutions of, in the Tory 
interest, 204 
importance of a great Liberal ma- 
jority in the forthcoming elec- 
tion, 204 
work for the new, 205, 216 
Parliament of 1880, p. 150 
Parliamentary Oaths Act, 87 
Parliamentary procedure, 156 
Parnell (Mr.), 168, 173 

contrasted with O'Connell, 54 
on dynamite explosions, 54 
on the Irish Land Bill, 27 
preaches a gospel of plunder, 54 
suggestion as to increased local 

govermnent in Ireland, 190 
test cases in the Land Courts, 55, 
57 
Pauperism in England and "Wales, 63 
Peace, the policy of, 30 
Peel (Sir Eobert), 44, 60, 78, 206 

economic in public expenditure, 30 
repeal of the Corn Laws, 170, 201, 
202 
Penjdeh, 148 
Plunket (Mr.), on the Irish Land Bill, 

21 
Poor Law Act of 1834, p. 62 
Posthumous bequest, a, 176 
Post Office Savings' Banks, 63 
Primogeniture, 213 
Property franchise, 125 
Property, taxes borne by, 212 
Protection, cloak of, too ragged, 204 
England under, 61 
our old friend, 41, 58 
Lord John Manners ou, 199 
results of, in foreign countries, 67 
Purchase, abolition of, 81 



"Radical Programme," 182 
Radicals, Tory notion of, 205 
Redistribution, 130 

a little sketch, 133 

political crises in connection Avitli, 
132 
Reform Bills, previous, 119, 128, 136 
Reform Bill of 1832, pp. 118, 136. 

Chandos clause, 122 
Reformers, appeal to, 135 
Registration, 128, 158 



n: 



Indeed. 



Keligious disabilities, removal of, 88, 93 
Eent, arrears of, 16 

increase of, under the action of the 
Land Act of 1870, p. 14 
Resources of civilization, 57 
Koberts (Sir Frederick) on Afghanistan, 

74 
Eomau Catholic emancipation, 78, 91 
Eoyal Commission on Trade, a piece of 
quackery, 199 
a fishing inquiry, 200 
Eussell ('Lord John) and national ex- 
penditure, 83 
Franchise Bill introduced by, 118, 

136 
introduces Bill for altering Parlia- 
mentary Oaths Act, 87 
Eussia, extei-nal trade of, 67 

intrigues in Afghanistan, 146, 152, 
156, 195 



Salford, dynamite explosion in, 54 

Mr. Parnell on, 54 
Salisbury (Lord), on Disestablishment 
of the English Church, 177, 180 

on the Land Bill of 1870, p, 14 

on the new Parliament, 172 

sound principles of, on the Servian 
question, 197 
Salisbury-SchouvalofF agreement, 140 
Salt (Mr.), motion on the Franchise 

Bill, 135 
San Stefano, treaty of, 196 
Savings banks, deposits in, 49, 63 
Scotland, franchise in, 124 

glebe land, 215 

increased representation, 189 

law of hypothec, 213 
Sea trade of the world, 70 
SerAda, invasion of Bulgaria by, 197 
Service franchise, 121 

in Ireland, 124 

in Scotland, 124 
Shaw (Mr.), 53 
Sherbrooke (Lord), 176 
Ship-building works on the Clyde, dis- 
franchisement of workmen employed, 
120 
Shipping, American, decrease of, 69 

English, increase in, 68 

effects of free trade on, 69 
Sidebottom (Mr.), unfounded assertion 

of, 175 
Sincat, garrison of, 116 
Slave traffic in the Soudan, 105, 144 
Soudan, abandonment of, approved by 
the Khedive, 112 



Soudan, Egyptian garrisons in, 145 
losses in, 109 
policy, 112 
evacuation of, 194 
error of judgment in, 154, 194 
Gen. Gordon's memorandum on, 

115 
Liberal policy in the, 96, 104, 107, 

109, 137, 153, 194 
re-conquest of, 109 
South Africa, bloodguiltiness in, 75 
Speeches : 

Dalkeith, 203 

Edinburgh, 167, 174 

House of Commons. 13, 79, 86, 99, 

118, 137 
Leeds, 29, 47 
Midlothian, 167 
West Calder, 188 
Spencer (Earl), attack on, 197 
Stewart (Colonel), 114 
Suakim, 116 



Tariffs, foreign, 38, 42 
Taxation, balance of, 215 

direct and indirect, 207 

of land, equitable, 215 

Tories the upholders of indirect, 211 
Taxes, local, 36, 157 
Tel-el-Kebir, battle of, 104 
Tenant-right, 17, 20, 22, 23 
Theistic test, a, 97, 98 
Tithe-rent charge, 126 
Tokar, force for relief of, 113, 117 
Tory Administrations, 204 

Democracy, 206 

Liberalism, 202 

notions of Radicals, 205 

Party, bugbears of, 205 

untruths circulated by a portion of, 
175 
Toryism in Midlothian, 32 
Trade, balance of, 64 

depression of, 38, 198 

in America, 65 

Eoyal Commission on, 198 
Transvaal negotiations, 76, 152 
Treaty of Berlin : Montenegro, 72, 151 

Greece, 73, 151, 196 
Trevelyan (Mr.), motion for household 

suffrage in the counties, 175 
Tyrone election, 50 



Union, the duty of, 166, 187 

United States, assassination literature, 54 



hide. 



'X. 



223 



United States, commercial future of, 66 
expoi'ts to, 42 
external trade of, 66 
protection in, 65, 69 
war bet^yeen the North and South, 
119 



♦• Vista, a long, 187 
Vote of censure, 99 

of credit in 1870, p. 141 
in 1878, p. 139 
in 1885, p. 136 
precedents for, 140 



War charges, 84 

Wellington (Duke of), 30, 78, 83, 202 



"Wesleyan Conference and the Oaths 

Bill, 90 
"VVeso Calder, speech at, Nov. 17, 1885, 

p. 188 
Willis, Mr. (Q.C.), on the transfer of 

land, 213 
Wilson (Sir Chas.), 114 
Wood (Sir Evelyn), 105, 108, 109 
Woollen and Avorsted goods, imports and 

exports, 38 
Working classes, savings of, 63 

York, railway station at, not built of . 
Belgian iron, 39 



Zulu war, 7o 



THE EKD. 



BRADBUJRY, A.GNEW, & CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS. 




<fiL 






/ 



Third] 



Routledge's Railway Library Advertiser. 



[Issue, 



TH U RSTON 'S Established 1814. 

BILLIARD 




By Appointment to H.M. 

The Queen and H.R.H. 

The Prince of Wales. 




TABLES. 



SILVER MEDAL, INTERNATIONAL INVEN- 
TIONS' EXHIBITION, 1885. 

' The New Electric Cloth (Registered), Eoherts' Champion Cue (Registered), the Perfect 
Billiard Cushion, as used by John Roberts, Jun. (Champion), the New Patent Combined 
Billiard and Dining Table, and Patent Electric Marking Board, can only be obtaine(^of 

THURSTON & CO., 16, CATHERINE ST., STRAND, LONDON, W.C, 

MELLIN'S FOOD FOR INFANTS & INVALIDS. 

For the Healthful Rearing of Hand-fed Children and the Pre- 
servation of Infant Life, and for the Nourishment of Invalids 
Vi^ho cannot Digest Ordinary Food. Entirely Soluble, and 
not Farinaceous. Price is. 6d. and 2s. 6d. per bottle. 




Prospectus and sample bottle sent post-free on application. 
INVENTOR AND MANUFACTURER, 

6. MELLIN, Marlboro' Works, Pecttam, 

LONDON, S.E. 



WHELPTON'S VE6ETAI 



"POR Half a Century these Pills have been rapidly increasing in public favour, and 
J- _ are now generally esteemed a great boon. Numerous testimonials are constantly 
received of the great benefits derived in cases of Sick Headache and complaints of the 
H^id, Chest, Bowels, Liver, and Kidneys, and in all Bilious Disorders. 

They are also indispensable in Rheumatism, Ulcers, Sores, 
and all Skin diseases, as they are a direct purifier of the 
Blood. 

Sold in Boxes, 7^d., is. i|d., and 2S. gd., by G. Whelpton 
& Son, 3, Crane Court, Fleet Street, London. Free, per f)ost, 
8, 14, and 33 stamps. Sold by all Chemists and Medicine 
Vendors, at Home and Abroad. 




This sweetly scented Emollient Milk is superior to every other 
preparation for rendering the Skin 

SOFT, SMOOTH, AND WHITE. 

It entirely removes and prevents all 
ROUGHNESS, REDNESS, SUNBURN, CHAPS, 

And all other blemishes of the Skin caused by 

SUMMER'S HEAT or WINTER'S COLD. 

It keeps the Skin Cool and Refreshed on the Hottest Day in 
Summer, and Soft and Smooth in the Coldest Winter. 

Bottles, i/, 1/9, 2/6. Of all Chemists and Perfumers. Free for 3d, extra by the Makers. 
v as. BEETHAM & BON, CHEMISTS, CHELTENHAM, 




Third] 



Routledge's Railway Library Advertiser, 



[Issue. 



FRE 





■^■^Sje M/VR^^ 



THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY TRUE. 

It is the Greatest Medical Discovery of the Present 
Century, and is Regarded as a Boon to Mankind. 

It is the best known remedy for Coughs, ColdSf Cousuznption, Whoopisig 
Cough, Bronchitis, and Asthma. 

It effectually checks and arrests those too often fatal Diseases— Eiphthczia, Siahetes, 
Fever, Croup, Ague, &c. 

It acts like a charm in Diasrhoea, and is the only known Specific in Cholera and 
Dysentezy. 

It effectually cuts short all attacks of llpilepsy. Hysteria, Palpitation, Con^^ 
vulsions, and Spasms. 

It is the only Palliative in Rheumatism, €rout, Cancer, Toothache, Neuralgia^ 
Sciatica, Ziumbago, &c. 

It rapidly relieves pain from whatever cause, allays the irritation of Fever, soothes and 
strengthens the system under exhaustive diseases, restores the derang-ed functions, 
stimulates healthy action of the secretions of the hody, gives quiet and refreshing- 
sleep, and marvellously prolongs life. It may he taken by old and young at all houis 
and times, according to the directions. 

Manufactured by the sole Inventor, RICHARD FREEMAIV, Pharmacist, 7©, Keniilii{;ton Parii 

Road, liOndOD, S.E. Sold by Chemists and Patent Medicine Dealers in all parts of the World, in 
Bottles, Is. lid. ; 2-oz., 2s. 9d. ; 4-oz., 4s. Od.; half-pints, lis.; and pints, 203. each. 
Purchasers are cautioned not to have palmed upon them any substitute. There are other articles bearing the 
name of Chloiodyne, but quite devoid of its wonderful effects. See that the Trade Mark, "The Elephant," is 
on the wrapper, &c., and that the words Freeman's Orisinal Chlorodyjte ate engraved on the 
Government Stamp, which is the only true Chloi'odyne. 



Quii^iNE AND Iron 

HEALTH, 'W^%tkai£^ 

SXRd.NGTH, i WHIB^a^B 

ENERGY. 

Great Bodily Strength, 
Great 'Eerve Strength, 
Great Mental Strength, 
Great Digestive Strength 

follows the use of PEPPER'S QUININE 
AND lEON TONIC. 

Bottles, 16 doses, 2s. 6d. ; next size, 4s. 6d. Sold by 
Chemists everywhere. Refuse imitations. Insist on 
having Pepper's. 



sulpholine 

Lotion, 

THE CURE FOR SKIN DISEASES! 

IN A FEW DAYS 

Eruptions, Pimples, Blotches entirely 

fade away. 

Beautifully Fragrant. Perfectly Harmless. 

Cures Old-standing Skin Diseases. 

It Removes every kind of Eruption, Spot, or 

Blemish, and Renders the Skin Clear, 

Smooth, Supple, and Healthy. 

Solpholme Lotion is sold by Chemists. Settles, 23. 9d. 



A Fluid Liver Medicine, made from 

DANDELION AND MANDRAKE ROOTS. 

Good for Liver Disorder and Indigestion. 

The hest Antibilious Remedy. 

Without a particle of Mercury, 

Safest and surest Stomach and Liver Meaicine 

Clears the Head and cures Headache. 

Regulates the Bowels. 

Bottles, 12 doses. Sold by most Chemists. Decline 
imitations ; many Chemists professing their own to 
equal Pepper's renowned Liver preparation. 



Sulphur 

\ RESTORERa 



THE BEST. THE SAFEST. THE CHEAPEST. 
Restores the Colour to Grey Hair. 
Instantly stops the Hair from fading. 
Occasionally used, Greyness is impos- 
sible. 

Where the Sulphur Restorer is applied scurf cannot 
exist, and a sense of cleanliness, coolness, &c., pre- 
vails, which cannot result from daily plastering the 
hair with grease. Sold everywhere, in large bottles, 
holding Blmost a idnt, Is €d. eaoh. Be sure to have 
Lockyer'a. 



Third] 



Routledgfe's Railway Library Advertiser. 



[Issue, 



SPECIALTIES 
FOR ALL 

JACKSON'S 

RUSMA. 



Sold by the Principal Druggists 
at Home and Abroad. 

For the Removal of Hair, without a 
Razor, from the Arms, Neck, or Face, 
as well as Sunburn or Tan. 

The activity of this depilatory is notable. It 
is easy and safe. It leaves a Whole Skin and a 
Clean Complexion. 



-, 



JACKSON'S 

BENZINE 

RECT. 



For taking out Grease, Oil, Paint, &c., 
from all absorbent Fabrics, Dress, or Drapery ; 
Furs. Gloves, Slippers, Books, and Manu 



THE YEAR 
ROUND. 

At Is. 

By Post, 
Is. 2d. 

At 6do, Is., 
and 2s. 6d. 



scripts, it cleans with equal success. It may | Parcel Post 



be freely used to wash Gilt surfaces to which 
water is destructive. 



3d. extra. 



JACKSON'S CHINESE DIAMOND CEMENT 

For China, Glass^ and ivliat not* 



T. J., in making this 
Cement, has constantly 
krpt in view the produc- 
tion of an article fit for 
general household pur- 
p j es, and which would, 
V i 1 average care, repair 
c lages, so that the 
r ; ided articles should be 

Sold in Bottles at 6d. 




able to do duty alongside 
the sound ones. It sur- 
passes in neatness, in 
strength, in cheapness, 
and retains its virtues 
in all climates. "^ It has 

TMs device is printed StOOd the test of time, 

on the Wrapper of and in all quarters of the 

erery Bottle of the ^^.^ij 
Genuine Article. vvuiiu. 

and Is. each ; by Inland Post, Is. 2d. 



H.R.H. 

Prinee Albert's 

CACHOUX. 



JACKSON'S 



Dainty morsels, in the form of tiny Silver 
Bullets, which dissolve in the mouth and sur- 
render to the breath their hidden fragrance. 

The little Caskets containing the Cachoux 
bear a Medallion of the late Prince Consort. 
They are also furnished with "The Albert Gate 
Latch" (Registered), being Thomas Jackson's 
contrivance for paying out the Cachoux singly. 



SPILLS. 



1885. 



A SPARKLING means of Incensing a Domicile, 
and of Exorcising Evil Smells, 
An enchanter's little wand, that on being 
fired becomes to the receptive as a Medium 
which quickens the fancy, be its mood grave or 
gay, kindly leading the captive to that ladder, 
the top of which reaches through the clouds to 
the borders of Fairyland. 



At6d. 
By Post, 7d. 



From the Laboratory of 

THOMAS JACKSON, 

Strangeways, MANCHESTER. 



At6d. 
By Post, 7d. 



POSTAGE 

for Abroad, at 

Letter Rate 

to same place. 



50.000,8. & B.,5 11AJ5. 




SOAP 

A SPECIALTY FOR THE COMPLEXION 

Recommended by SiR Erasmus Wilson, F.R.S., late President 
of the Royal College of Surgeons of England^ as 

"The most refreshing and agreeable of balms for the skin." 



MDME. ADELINA PATTI writes :— I have 
found Pears' Soap matchless for the hands 
,and co7nplexio7ir 

MRS. LANGTRY writes :— '* Since using Pears' 
Soap for the hands and complexion, / have 
discarded all others, ' 

MDME. MARIE ROZE (Prima Donna, Her 
Majesty s Theatre) writes : — " For preserving 
the complexion, keeping the skin soft, free 
from redness and roughness, and the hands in 
nice condition, Pears' Soap is the finest 
preparation in the world!^ 

MISS MARY ANDERSON writes — * I have 
used Pears' Soap for two years with the 
greatest satisfaction, for I find it the very bestP 



PEARS' SOAP— SOLD EVERYWHERE 



